Major League Ready

This has been proven untrue but even if it was true ... who is most able to pay the highest price? A team with $300M in revenue like the Twins or a team with $600M like the Yankees or Dodgers or even a team with a mere $100M advantage like the Phillies? It just astounds me that fans continue to complain that teams with far less revenue get outbid with teams with far more revenue. If you want to ignore the basic ability to pay. How is it not apparent that teams with half the revenue need to get twice the production per dollar spent. It's not as if we don't have examples of success in Tampa and Oakland. Spending in the same manner as large market teams is a guarantee of failure. Of course, any response to this question will not address the question of who is most able to pay.

Twins are a prime candidate for SPs looking to bounce back. We have the rotation openings. However, it won't be guys looking for $20M.

How am I focused on a 2-3 year plan? This is a real good example of my earlier statement that any plan that looks beyond next year is a 3+ year plan. I very clearly laid out a 1 year plan. Taking one year to develop pitching and transition to Miranda in. Any of these moves focused only on the present can be done next year. The difference is there is a very good chance we can establish a home grown rotation that can serve us for several years years. It gives us a chance to transition Donaldson out and Miranda in a year where we are very unlikely to contend. And, the part you don't seem to grasp is that we would have far more payroll availability to fill out a roster. This need for the right now is a good way to stay mediocre for a long time. Take a look around. What did Chicago and Seattle do with similar teams? How did Houston become a powerhouse? What are the Cubs about to do? Then, look at the Phillies and Mets who have employed the strategy you suggest. How are they doing? This team is not contending next year short of a miracle so I would much rather win 80 games instead of 84 while pursuing practices that have a real chance of producing a contender.

You don't understand how the Dodgers and Rays are examples of teams that actually made big investments and therefore "went for it" You don't see how that is in stark contrast to Atlanta's approach? Go a little beyond one post and consider this thread. You are not trying top hard and I certainly did not mean to imply you would judge the FO in this way. I thought I was pretty clear in that there were a number of people that would crucify the FO. How does that indict you? Pretty touchy, Mike. I was not criticizing you in the least. Just pointing out that your post was fair in a bubble but not reflective of expectations on this site.

Maybe the Twins should rebuild but that's another question. There are a lot of people here who keep insisting anything other than a complete focus on next year will necessitate a rebuild. Just look at the role young pitchers played in the playoffs this year. We already have two young pitchers prove to be quite effective. Ober came along way in 20 starts. They could "retool" in one year so I wish people would quit the drama of portraying it as a rebuild. Here is what they could do between 2022 and 2023. Invest innings in the multitude of pitching prospects that are ready or will become ready during 2022. Move some of those prospects to the BP Trade Donaldson / Free up dollars for 2023 Decline Sano's option next year Bring up Miranda to replace Donaldson. Establish a couple of Martin / Larnach / Celestino and maybe even Lewis. It would not hurt to give Rooker a last chance. Get Maeda back Trade Arraez + assets for whatever we need to round out the roster. Perhaps a SS if Lewis bombs. Use the payroll flexibility provided by establishing internal pitching (ie Berrios) or whatever the greatest need is in 2023. Use some of that money to extend Buxton. There would also be money available next year for a SS (IE Anderson) if Lewis bombs and we cant trade for one. This is a very realistic 1 year retool so can we quit insisting the Twins will have to rebuild if they don't plug every hole in 2022?

That does not seem like the rotation of a contender unless one of the kids emerges as an Ace. The Twins followed this type of patchwork roster management under the previous regime. They put together teams that we OK and were never willing to pursue a path that had a real shot at producing a contender. This plan looks to me like it would produce a pretty good team for the next 2-3 years but the only way it becomes a contender is if the prospects step up. So, invest those innings in 2022 with prospects gaining experience and proving which ones belong instead of dragging the process into 2023. This strategy might be OK If we had an elite offense and shutdown BP. We have neither.

This is a fair take in isolation. In the context of expectation / demands of posters here it's just not at a realistic portrayal of what going for it means to many here. Can you honestly say that people would not be crucifying our FO if the Twins made the same type of moves while in a season where they had a realistic shot? The entire premise of this thread is that Atlanta "went for it" which is a rather twisted view of reality. The invested almost nothing. The Dodgers and the Rays invested and failed. The Braves invested nothing and won the WS. To portray this as "see what happens when you go for it" is preposterous. Do I agree the Braves did the right thing. Of course, they did not just roll over when they got hit with injuries. They also found a couple of unusual opportunities in Rosario and Soler. Two guys who had been sucking but we all know have the capability of impacting a series. What are the odds that pans out but it did.

You really need to pay a little attention to real life examples. The White Sox traded away far more than Berrios. Where are they now. Boston (even with their revenue) let Betts go. How are they doing? The Mariners cleaned house and now are poised to be in contention for several year. The Padres went all in and it blew up in their face. Maybe Darvish and Snell will perform better next year but Snell had one great year and several mediocre seasons. Darvish was terrible the 2nd half. Meanwhile Patino looks like he could be better than Snell over his career. If that does not clear things up for you .... Take a look at the Rays who obviously have less resource than the Twins and far less than their division rivals. They traded away Adames mid-season while leading the division. When they traded away Blake Snell and the reaction around baseball was similar to your reaction. They are far better positioned because of that trade. Perhaps more to the point they trade away established players all the time and have thrived by understanding the value of years of control and cost controlled players. They continue to add complimentary players because they understand these principals.

I am hoping for an upgrade but I would not refuse to watch them. His ABs are roughly 5% of the show so I am not denying myself baseball because I don't like one of the players. However, I agree with you in that I can't stand watching his ABs. I record the game and let it get ahead. Then, just FF through the commercials, pitching changes, and certain ABs.

So replacing Simmons with a rookie will cost us 11 games?

I fail to see the difference from a practical or functional perspective. Does the player's unrealized potential result in an important asset to the Twins or not. Command seems to be what's holding him back to me. If he had harnessed that command at 22, we would not have him. I am not a member of the Saints coaching staff so I have little idea if they are seeing something that would suggest he might breakout or not. It does however happen with pitchers so I see no need to be so pessimistic.

Prior was 20 years ago so that spans 600 picks. you mentioned 3 in the last 20 years. Strasberg was #1 overall and Prior #2. Harper took two years so I don't know how that counts. Garrett Crochet pitched 6 innings so technically he made it to the big leagues but he is not even remotely the same type of talent as the others mentioned. We would need to come up with 3 more to get to 1/100 limiting it to 1st round picks. The point being I fail to see who this is a meaningful measure in any form.

There are quite a few Pitchers who "break-out" 2 or 3 years after reaching the big leagues so I don't know why a 25 y/o in AAA can't be considered breaking out if they take a big leap forward. Liam Hendricks is a good example.

How often does it happen with any team? Even if we look at only 1st rounders, what percentage make it to the ML level the next year. 1 in a hundred?

You have a much more optimistic take on their chances in 2017 than I believe was present. They finished 17 games back. Cleveland and Houston had 100+ win teams and the Twins were OK offensively but the starting rotation was led by a couple guys (Santana/Berrios) who would be at very best 3s on a real contender. Their chances were extremely slim in my view and the 2017 Twins and the 2021 Braves are not comparable teams so the premise we should have been buyers at the 2017 deadline is not what I would takeaway from this discussion.

This begs the question why did they take a guy in the 1st round with questionable bat speed. Was injury hampering his bat speed? If not, how does a guy with questionable bat speed and no defensive value get taken ion the 1st round?

Just curious how everyone views this proposed roster. Does this team look like a real contender? Does Rodriquez seems low at $12M?

I don't think anyone would disagree but that's not the point. Where I disagree is when someone says Arraez is a better hitter than Sano or others. BTW ... I have never been a big Sano supporter. However, Sano has a career OPS+ of 119 and Arraez 113. Sano has a wRC+ of 118 and Arraez 113. I don't see anyone saying a player can't be great offensively without hitting a lot of homeruns. We are just saying that average and OBP have to be quite high to make up for a lack of power. Arraez was great offensively in 2019 but his production was down considerably this year. It makes no sense to have him in LF where he is a poor defender and does not have the bat for the position either. It makes no sense to put him at 2B when you have Polanco and it makes no sense to put himn at 3B when you have Donaldson now and Miranda in the winds. So, it's nice to have his bat in a utility role but he could probably yield a player in trade that would make a greater contribution to contending?

I was about to write basically the exact same thing until I read your post. I don't really understand the message provided in the OP. Atlanta took a shot bringing in some guys who all performed at one time or another but were mediocre at best. Is this what Twins fan want? This was a prayer that worked out incredibly well? They did it because it cost them nothing in terms of prospects. What I see here is fans want to trade for players like Scherzer, Turner, Berrios, Cruz, Baez, and top RPs. All of those teams failed. Just like every other year buying (no matter how big) ends up failing at the deadline. Even in a case like the Cubs, can we say with any real certainty the Cubs would not have won without Chapman? Did the Royals need to trade away Manea in 2015? What are the odds they would have won without Zobrist? So, what's the takeaway here?

He found something when he moved to Cedar Rapids. It was only 97 PAs but he had a wRC+ of 165 and an OPS over 1. I was really down on him but his performance in CR gives us some hope. I did not like that pick at that time and it came the year after they took Cavaco which I really hated. They could have take Stott or Carrol. Stott ended last year at AAA and he could have been our SS next year and Carroll is a 60FV prospect. Man, that ticks me off.

I really don't know what to think he could return in terms of pitching. That's why I have suggested in the past we might be able to trade him for a SS that is blocked. Lewis is the only really good SS prospect we have and there are certainly question marks with him. Maybe I am misinterpreting some posts but I the context of the posts seems to indicate some posters are advocating trading Arraez for established major league pitching and I just don't see that happening.

Kind of a one-sided view. Gurriel also massively outproduced Arraez. His average was 25 points higher and his slugging percentage was 86 points higher and he hit 15 bombs vs two for Arraez. They certainly are not the same hitter so it makes little sense to compare them in the way you have here. There is nothing flawed about JM's argument.

What if it's a SS? What if it's pitching prospects. It would seem that a team trading for Arraez would be a contender and contenders generally don't trade established major league pitching, right?

I think your definition of “can hit” is a bit narrow. Arraez hits for a high average but that’s not the only determining factor in creating runs. Arraez has a career wRC+ of 103. Garver-122 / Sano-118 / Even Kepler is 101 and he provides great defensive value. I think you are also looking back and not where we are going. Kirilloff is already more impactful than Arraez and he has the potential to be far more impactful. Who knows exactly what Miranda will do be he will likely have a much greater offensive impact. His strike out percentage is very low and his slugging percentage very high. We also have Martin in the wings with similar skills, more power, and more speed, and better defensively. Buxton is only has a 99 career wRC+. I too hope his SSS this year is a view of what’s to come but we should also have some confidence in Kirilloff and Miranda.

Have to agree no team is trading a pitcher with this profile without getting back an elite prospect. These trades are always presented as multiple decent players for a great player but when does that actually ever happen?