Major League Ready

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

You said a lot in this one sentence. It's hard to "lose" in a trade when trading a rental in a lost season. (context) If you trade away a good player with multiple years of control, you need to get something back. If you trade average players that are rentals, you are going to get low probability players. Mike, is right, I recall the ridicule when Ynoa was traded for anyone who had a problem with them trading a way such a player. Now we are going to ridicule the FO because of such trades when the players are just about to reach the ML level. What's worse is that these trades have significant potential to work out very much in our favor so drawing a conclusion at this point is self-indulgent. And, using WAR to evaluate trading away a current asset looks like a very bias way of trying to assert something that is yet to be determined. It would not be offensive if it was not used to criticize and assert incompetence. It's bad form to provide obviously flawed analysis while criticizing others.

Cleveland has lost 9 straight and they are 8 games back. I doubt they are buyers. I seriously doubt they would trade Rodgers to the Whitesox.

Cron was 14 th in Fwar among position on that team with .3 WAR. Rosario was 11th with 1.2 Fwar and Schoop was 10th with 1.3. You are contributing a turn around of approximately 40 wins/losses to 3 players that produced 2.8 Fwar. I would add that Sano had 2.7 Fwar which is basically as much as the 3 of them combined. Kepler has 4.4 FWAR. I would say the drop in production among Sano and Kepler is far more impactful than losing Rosario / Schoop and Cron. Of course, there is always the fact that Rosario is now playing at replacement level so he would a detriment if he were still here. A lot of things have contributed to a poor Twins seasons. The three players you listed are not in the top 10, IMO. They don't need to dump Simmons. He can be a place holder until it is determined if Lewis / Javier / etc can replace him. However, he has been worth .1 WAR. Offense counts for SSs too. They will find a different solution next year. Miranda wont be as good as Donaldson next year but Miranda in his 2nd year vs a 37 year old Donaldson is 2023 is hard to say. What we can say is that Miranda and $20M invested elsewhere is probably a better combination.

I am thinking that they would have extended him by now if he was willing. Of course, I have no way of knowing and that's why I have left other options open. There are a lot of players who want every dime they can get. Waiting for free agency has a risk component for the player but many of them are willing to take that risk. I really like Berrios. How many pitchers have his durability. He is still young and he has performed quite well. However, if he wants to be elsewhere, he will be.

Just curious what are the three reasons the twins went from 100 wins to the 100 losses you are projecting?

You read my mind. After, I listed what are basically assumptions, I was going to add the FO could take another direction if they assume they can establish two MLB pitchers this year. That's what I was thinking at the start of this year before we had so many injuries. At this point, I was thinking in terms of the preserving their jobs as well as the path most likely to result in success. Pitchers often take time to become effective at the ML level so that's a relatively high risk plan. If they pass on a good return and don't have a great 2022, that's when Falvey and Levine's job would be in question if I were the Pohlads. If Berrios simply prefers to be elsewhere you are left with nothing. Yes, you could massively overpay and "get him at any cost" but that's bad management and leads to lost jobs. Keep in mind, the keep them plan makes no sense unless you trade away key future assets and/or are willing to increase payroll to the point it hurts because this team needs help. So, you have to present a plan to increase spending after two horrible years financially and risk the future. The other plan has financial relief for 2022 and not have what would be significant exposure in 2023. In addition, they would have lot assets that COULD have impacted our success for several years. You can spend the money you would have spent on Berrios elsewhere. Perhaps even more effectively and you have passed up adding significant assets even if you use them to trade for a SP. I think they do it of the return is good which does not mean blown away. However, that's just my opinion. We are going to see in a few weeks although we will never really know what they were offered.

All very reasonable Tom. The one area where I might disagree is that keeping Berrios in 2022 is the best way for them to keep their jobs. If they keep Berrios for 2022, they will have to ask for a considerable increase in payroll and/or trade away a significant portion of our prospects if we are to build an actual contender. (not challenge to win the division but contend for a deep run). Picture a meeting where this is discussed because these various scenarios have been fully vetted at this point. If not, they are incompetent and the Pohlad’s are asleep at the wheel. I would bet on the former. If you spend on the significant assets, you won’t have any money left to resign Berrios or Buxton unless you get someone to take Donaldson’s full contract. (good luck with that) For example, one of the top SS and the level SP we need would be in excess of $50M probably closer $55M. Of course, the needs don’t stop there. In other words, it’s an all-in for 2022 approach with a mountain of question marks. Presenting such a plan is the best way to lose your GM/PBO job. If you move forward with a plan to sign them with a plan to sign them once they hit free agency, you can’t sign the FAs you would need in 2022 because they will require multi-year commitments. The 2023 payroll can’t possibly support resigning Berrios/Buxton/Rodgers. They will not lose their jobs If they present the Pohlad’s with a plan to compete in 2023 under the following assumptions. They can get a good return for Berrios/Rodgers and maybe Buxton. All-in for 2022 would require foregoing this influx of talent. This is a core assumption. The entire plan would need reconsideration if the return is not available. Their best opportunity to build a contender is to take the next year and a half to audition and establish pitchers at the ML level. Move Donaldson for whatever is the best offer. Pay his entire 2021 salary is necessary but get his 2023 salary off the books. Insert Miranda or another prospect by sometime early next year and give them all of 2022 to get established. That way the position can be addressed in the off-season if necessary. Taking this path SHOULD return assets that can make a major contribution by 2023-24 for several years. With Donaldson / Sano of the books, we would have payroll flexibility in 2023 unlike anything we have had in many years.

For me it's that I thought he was going to break-out. Of course, he did in 2019 and I really thought he had arrived. Definitely not part of the problem although the 2019 Max would be a bigger part of the solution.

There are always exceptions. Justin Turner comes to mind. He had 58 PAs prior to his age 26 season and he was not good until his age 29 season.

I sure don't see Winder lower than Celestino and Cavaco. Winder and Miranda have made this very interesting. Based on this year I would have them 3&4 (behind Lewis/Balazovic) but should we put that much weight on a half year? IDK I have watched a few of the games and those two are quite impressive. Duran would round out the top 5 for me.

It's a crazy game. Even really good hitters just go through periods where they just stink it up. It's common. In Sano's case it's kind of been his norm since Milb. He does not seem to adapt very well to how he is being pitched. Of course, that's easier said than done. Come to think of it Kepler had some hot streaks in Milb but he too went through extended periods where he was mediocre. IDK but the results (at least on the surface) suggest a coaching change might help.

So, Miranda has moved into the top 5. That's a big jump and potentially a big boost to the organization at some point. Where Roger's points are concerned I just want to say ditto. I did not like the Sabato pick. That's just too high for a guy with minimal defensive value.