Major League Ready

Houston lost Cole / Verlander and Springer. All three far more impactful than Berrios / Rodgers. Since the 2019 season, Tampa lost Morton / Snell and traded two of the top three position players in terms of WAR. Of course, the difference is those teams were great. Barring a small miracle, the Twins are not contending in 2022 with or without them.

Everything came together for them in 2019. They were good but they still were not a serious contender. There were a bunch of question marks in 2019. Several guys had career years. Garver / Polanco / Sano and Kepler had career years. Arraez burst on the seen. The BP was vastly improved. They signed a 39 y/o FA (Cruz). That’s risky and he was phenomenal. Odorizzi was at his best and we got him without giving up anything. 2022 would require everything come together like it did in 2019 but there are some differences. The biggest difference is the FO must choose between keeping assets like Rodgers / Berrios and Buxton or targeting 2023 and beyond. They did not need to risk the future to succeed in 2019. The prospects that would come back from those trades could have a huge impact for several years. Of course, they could all flame out. Odds are some good even very good players would come out of trading these high value assets. It comes down to a couple things. Do you believe we can retain Berrios / Buxton and Rodgers. Do you believe Sano will return to his 2019 form./ How about Kepler / Garver? Will they return to 2019 form? Can Nelson Cruz continue to perform at this level. Can we even sign him with universal DH likely? Can we replace his bat for $13M? Can we completely rebuild the BP in 2022? How will we fill the holes after Berrios / Maeda by opening day 2022? What are the odds we can contend and is it a good idea to go all-in for 2022. If we target 2023, are our odds much better? Retaining Berrios / Buxton / Rodgers is going to require we are top bidder. 2023 probably is not any different if you trade them now. They will be here if the Twins are top bidder. However, taking an approach of developing starting pitching and the BP over the remainder of this year and 2022 has a much better chance of succeeding than piecing together a rotation and a BP in 2022. Targeting 2022 also takes away rotation spots that could be used to develop SPs at this level. The difference is that we have whatever assets we would have traded away chasing contention in 2022 and we have some very good additional assets. Some of them might not be here by 2023 but it’s certainly realistic a couple of them would contribute in 2023. I do not accept the premise we either have to retool for 2022 or go into a full rebuild. If targeting 2023 is the best plan, let’s follow the best plan. I would prefer a “retool” take a year and a half than to pursue a strategy with a high probability of failure, especially when that failure significantly extends the duration of that failure.

Well said! 2022 would require everything come together like it did in 2019 but there are some differences. The biggest difference is the FO must choose between keeping assets like Rodgers / Berrios and Buxton or targeting 2023 and beyond. They did not need to risk the future to succeed in 2019. The prospects that would come back from those trades could have a huge impact for several years. Of course, they could all flame out. Odds are some good even very good players would come out of trading these high value assets.

Never could figure out why anyone thinks spreading negativity is a good idea. Of course, it requires none of the skill or wisdom it takes to come up with finding solutions. The solutions are also much more interesting to discuss.

My question is can they get someone to take Donaldson and most of his contract for a dozen balls and a case of Gatorade. If so, I would prefer to trade them separately because Rodgers will bring back a good prospect. IDK if that is possible but it's preferable IMO.

Other teams have had BP guys who rely on velocity. The Twins had guys like Wisler, Romo, and Thielbar among others. That's going to shape the numbers.

I would agree with you in a normal year. In a lost year, the most important thing is to develop players. If the best place for Larnach to develop is at the MLB level, so be it. I am not sure which approach would be best. IDK his history and I am not aware of what they are working on in practice or how that is going. Earlier I suggested some time in St. Paul might be in order but other posters have made good points as to why he should stay. I am open to either but the decision to stay or go is not short-term based. Keeping him here or sending him down should be based on what's best for Larnach long-term.

If the Phillies spend asset capital on a 500 team it's going to be in the BP. The better trade partner for us is the Mets looking to make sure the Phillies don't catch them.

Agree. Dead last in payroll with a team that had a reasonable shot at competing for the division. They certainly could have afforded to add someone much better than Rosario or Rosario plus an impact bat. They could have spent twice as much and still spent less the Twins.

OK. I am convinced. Actually, I was never of a mindset contrary to what you have been saying. I really just want to believe Refsnyder is breaking out and we are the beneficiaries. Of course, that's not exactly sound thinking giving he has had 62 PAs. He has just been so darn good I want to believe in him and give him a shot.

I don't think anyone here or the Twins don't find value in velocity, especially given their 1st round pick. However, they did pick 26th this year and 27th the year before. They had the same velocity deficit and still had one of the best W/L records. I am not sure we can say with certainty that the "Twins are going to find themselves losing a lot of games" if they don't have as many flame throwers. Also, batters are adjusting to the velocity so will velocity have a diminishing return as hitters adjust? I would love to have our own Jacob DeGrom but so would just about every other team. Guys with that velocity and all the other attributes that make pitchers successful are VERY hard to find. Putting too much weight on that one trait probably does not result in developing a lot of pitching.

It would be great if he adapts to the adjustments the league has made which is to throw him breaking stuff. He has only played 3 games at AAA where he would have seen better breaking balls and was rushed a bit into service. My only worry is setting a player back by shattering their confidence. I think there are pros and cons with putting a player in this position if they re not truly ready. I would rather weatch games with him playing but I don't want to mess up his development. There is also value in further evaluation of Garlick and Refsntder. In Garlick's case, he has proven himself at AAA. Refsnyder is just a really nice surprise. It sure would be nice for us to have a Max Muncy type of find. Anyway, sending Larnach down for a little while might be a way to maximize our assets but there is more than one way to skin this cat. Larnach having the most ceiling, the team should take care of him first. I guess the could option Garlick. He has an option left Refsnyder is out of options.

I would hope they would just DFA Cave if they can't find a trade partner. Garlick's splits against LH pitching make him more valuable. I would also keep Refsnyder or Gordon at the MLB level instead of Cave. They are more likely to be part of the solution/future. However, it might make sense to send Gordon to get some CF experience if they think he can become a decent CF backup.

I have no problem with being critical when warranted. Complaining for the sake of complaining is tedious. You like to complain about the stupidity of management and do so at every available opportunity regardless of actual merit. Where Larnach and Kirilloff are concerned, they have barely eclipsed a couple hundred ABs. They look promising but at this point we are all relatively uniformed to draw any conclusions. Kirilloff looks like he is better prepared but Larnach was rushed because of multiple injuries. That's about as much as I am prepared to conclude.

I was listening to an interview with one of the Twins developmental guys. He mentioned they had a "Velo Camp" and a "Command Camp". Perhaps someone here knows more about these camps. Some of our prospects have definitely picked up some velocity. Ober was high 80s. Canterino and Winder picked up some velo and I have read Rijo has added a couple MPH. I suspect there are others. Anyone know more about these camps. It would be interesting to see what percentage of SPs exceed 97 with any consistency, especially among higher WAR SPs. Obviously, the percentage is much higher in BPs. They just chose a guy largely because he can throw 96+ but how much focus belongs on the ability to throw 97-100 for SPs. Is this focus better placed on the BP and what practices could aid in indentify and developing high velo BP arms?

It’s the player’s job to get hits but they don’t bat 1000. Same is true for any FO so to expect perfection and complain when it’s not achieved is to complain about the inevitable. The Twins did EXACTLY what fans clamor for them to do. They traded prospects for established player. In the case a Ynoa, the prospect was an A ball lottery ticket and the move was supported at the time. Do, I need to point out the other teams “people who are paid to get it right”. You can’t ask they trade for established players and expect that we never give up players who become productive MLB players. It’s also not as if they gave up Tattis Jr. They took a calculated risk with Baddoo. Who would have expected a position player with his history to be taken? What is a reasonable risk because there are always going to be players exposed we don’t want to lose. If you look at this situation and say they should have known, we will just have to disagree. Then, you also need to conclude they should have expected him to stick despite not playing last year and modest Milb experience/production. Sports fans love to complain. Some more so than others.

I have absolutely no problem with adapting somewhat based on need. What I have a problem with is the tendency for sports fans to insult the people making decisions when said sports fans does not have any supporting evidence. I find it especially off-putting when the implication is that those people must be ignorant if they dont' understand XYZ. If you have hard evidence they don't know what they are doing, fine. They absolutely deserve the criticism. However, taking a hard stance without evidence or evidence like other teams do it even Tampa Bay is not exactly wisdom. Obviously, this WAS NOT your logic. I am just making a point in general. Why do I care if another team did something. WHAT WAS THE RESULT. Since 2001 the Rays have taken pitchers with 9 of their 20 first round picks. David Price was a 1/1 pick and he was kind of a no-brainer. Certainly not the same situation as picking in the late part or even middle of the 1st round. He is the only one of the nine to produce more than 5 career WAR to this point. The point being of course, that this is the kind of meaningless evidence used to support we must take pitchers in the 1st round. If we want to add supplemental rounds, the Rays took 3 pitchers in the 2011 supplemental round. One of them was Blake Snell. The pitcher they took 12 picks ahead of him is 28 years old in AAA with an ERA over 5. The player picked 5 slots later never made it to the MLB level. To be fair here, Matthew Liberatore has a good chance of adding to the success stories. What this track record suggests to me is that 1st round picks that are not David Price at 1/1 have a high probability of failure. What was the result in this example? 2001 – Pick 3 - Dewon Brazelton – Made it to the MLB level and produced a Career bWAR of -3. 2004 – Pick 4 - Jeff Niemann - Made it to the MLB level and produced a Career bWAR of 4.3. 2005 – Pick 8 - Wade Townsend – Never made it to the MLB level 2007-Price - Pick 1 as a 1/1 pick and he was kind of a no-brainer. Certainly not the same situation as picking in the late part or even middle of the 1st round. 2011-Pick 24 - Taylor Guerrieri is 28 years old. He is still at AAA with an ERA over 5. 2011-Supplemental pick 42 - Jeff Ames – Never made it to the MLB level 2011-2011 Supplemental 54 – Blake Snell – Great 2011-2011 Supplemental 59- Grayson Garvin - Never made it to the MLB level 2013-Pick 29 - Ryne Stanek – Will be 30 in a couple weeks and has a career WAR of 1.4. 2017-Pick 4 - Brendan McKay – Hard to say what’s going to happen with him. 2018-pick 16 - Matthew Liberatore – Looks good in AAA. 2020-Pick 24 – Nick Bitsko – He is 19 so we shall see.

Good lord that is one huge stretch. I will grant you it's possible they could have gotten home field advantage but its a stretch. They did not have the hitting or pitching to contend with the Yankees and would have gotten beat regardless of where they played, IMO. Using these prospects is an even bigger stretch. Do you honestly believe Davis is going to turn into a player of any impact? He has been crushing AAA pitching since we had him. He is 26 and gotten a crack at the MLB level in each of the last 3 years and failed in what is granted a SSS. However, if he was a good prospect he would stick. Teng has a 1.54 whip in high A at age 22. Berroa is still in A ball. In summary, I think you are really reaching. The Twins got damaged goods in the Dyson trade. I am not sure of the cause of that failure but it was the source of the problem, not trading Pressly and to say the Twins would have beat the Yankees that year with Pressly is silliness as you put it.

You make a good point about Alcala having less than 60 innings at the MLB level. I am not sur how it makes any sense to expect he is anything like Pressly at this point. Pressly did not produced more than 1 WAR in a given year until his 6th season. I am curious is to how you believe Pressly would have made a difference in 2019. They won over 100 games and won the division comfortably. They got blown out in the first round and the BP had little to do with the loss. Frankly, I don't think it would have mattered if we would have had Mariano Riveria. We still don't win a game in that series. What am I missing?

I would sure hope their strategy of drafting bats early is the product of hard data. Perhaps you have seen an article that is the product research someone has done. I just assumed it did not exist for public consumption because it would require more work and more cost than someone would put into something that was published. I am not going to criticize a strategy of favoring bats in the early rounds when I am not informed. When you did this regarding signing the highest ranked international players, I did my own research. It was not so extensive as the be conclusive. However, I did look at the results from several years. After getting a significant amount of information, IDK that I would ever sign an international prospect (16-17 yo) for more than 1.5M. I would bet on taking two 1.5M guys or 3 1m guys over a $3M guy every time. Point being, we sports fans tend to have rather firm opinions based on assumptions not supported in fact. Where we agree is I hope any 1st or 2nd round pick is either a SS or CF. Maybe a catcher but certainly not one that is questionable to stick at catcher. While there are exceptions, those guys end up mediocre defenders in a non-premium position. I would also hope they adapt their strategy if college pitching happens to be exceptionally deep vs hitters being thin.

Hard to argue something this concrete but I think there is an additional element. That's making room to audition their replacements and give those players some much needed MLB experience. It makes for more informed decisions going into next year. Just playing it out with the guys we have is to absolutely ignore the future for the sake of a couple months of a lost season. That's a REALLY bad plan when the teams needs to make considerable strides to identify and develop the players that will get us out of the current mess that is the Minnesota Twins. I guess we could also add to ignore the opportunity to add assets in a lost season is a really good way for Falvey to lose his job.

Would we have won a playoff series in 2019 instead of being one and done? No, the BP had very little to do with our failures. So, just exactly what is it worth to win 102 or 103 games instead of 101. I don't really know if Alcala is going to be a middle reliever or a very good late inning guy. What I do know is that the actual impact was negligible so I prefer at least having a chance at having a guy that could be impactful for multiple seasons. This very logic of dwelling on Pressly when he would have had little impact over a short period is why people just can't understand Tampa's practices.

If you have a crystal ball. If not. you are forming a conclusion with very incomplete information. They have a name for that amongst people who get paid to form conclusions .... Unemployed.

Agree with everything you said. I would add that anything that happened after the 2018 season is absolutely irrelevant to evaluating the trade. The value proposition was we traded the remainder of his contract (2018 season) for Duran and Maciel. As you pointed out Duran is a top 100 prospect. If we are evaluating the trade today, that's a great outcome. Escobar produced reasonably well under his next contract. We spent quite wisely in 2019 so I am not sure how you evaluate how the money was allocated vs spending it on him but that does not change the fact that anything he did after his contract was up should not be part of the trade evaluation.

For me it's 1. Lewis 2. Balzovic 3. Winder 4. Miranda 5. Duran 6. Canterino 7. Blaine Enlow 8. Cole Sands 9. Bailey Ober 10. Nick Gordon