Major League Ready

How does the delay of the Milb season change the argument that he needs some AAA experience?

You are assuming the Twins don't value Rooker enough to give him a chance. I don't believe the Twins are going to abandon all else to insert Kirilloff. Of course, I don't know how the Twins see / evaluate Rooker so I could definitely be wrong. However, they have a much more logical option. Rooker is the more proven player at this point. Starting with Rooker / Cave in LF is not going to jeopardize the season. This approach allows them an opportunity to further evaluate Rooker. It also provides an opportunity for Kirilloff to prove he can excel above A+ which he has not.

My memory may be off but I recall him being ranked higher than dropping off. At the time I thought he made much more sense than Gordon. I saw Turner as the guy you hoped Gordon would turn into but Turner was obviously further along and was an elite athlete. I hated the Gordon pick and thought Turner had all-star potential so I am onboard that he made more sense than Gordon.

We simply see this scenario very differently in the context of keeping the window open. I think that extended success is far better served by using that roster spot to break-in Kirilloff / Rooker & Larnach. I think the ream is better served reallocating the money to Simmons and sliding Polanco to 2B. I also think the younger players are better served with role models who take good at ABs, and throw to the right base or cut-off man.

I don't have a problem with evaluating scouts by "batting average" in concept. However, how do we know the problem is not the scouting practices put in place by the organization? The person responsible for the scouting organization and it's practices is the guy who's average should determine continued employment. We should also note this is an area undergoing major changes. Scouts are being let go in favor of video analysts. It would appear that the industry is aware of low batting averages.

Sorry. I think the whole "they are professional scouts" thing is very parochial thinking. It's just not that simple when a hall of famer can be drafted in the 62nd round (Piazza) and Mark Appel and others like him never made it to the majors. The 2016 draft was a good example. Shane Bieber, Bo Bichette, and Pete Alonzo are the three best players from that draft. They were drafted 122 / 66 & 64 respectively. So, to say that professionals should not miss talent like these players is very simplistic thinking IMO.

Where I was going with this is that I don't see the point in getting too caught up in his age. How is it a problem that we have Rooker from age 25 (last season) through age 31? It's only a problem if it takes him 3 years to become accomplished at this level. It seems to be a lot of people are trying hard to find ways to discredit Rooker because they want to see Alex Kirilloff immediately. Maybe I am greedy but I would rather hope for great things from both players.

It's not at all fair to say the should have taken Chapman. 18 other teams passed on Chapman. Turner is only a little unfair but I don't recall anyone saying he should have been top 10 at the time. Aaron Nola on the other hand made more sense than a skinny high school kid.

Justin Turner was 26 the 1st year he had more than 25ABs at the ML level. The first year he had an OPS+ over 100 he was 29. He went on to an average OPS+ of 140 over the next 7 years.

Thanks. It's takes time to track down these various reports so this type of synthesized info is great.

What is that source? I always find it difficult to get good information on defensive aptitude.

OK. I will play along. Now that we have established that expecting the budget to remain the same is unreasonable, we can agree they spent more than should have been expected. Therefore, we have two possible conclusions. 1) It’s unreasonable to expect they would have spent an additional roughly $10M to keep Rosario but you expect it regardless of reason. 2) We should have sacrificed elsewhere. Which one of these options would have been less productive than replacing Rosario with a combination of Rooker / Kirilloff / Larnach and Cave. a. Pass on resigning Cruz. b. Not added Simmons and used a prospect in his place. c. We should have Passed on Happ and Robles. d. Pass on some other combination of additions at a collective cost of $10M.

He will get plenty of time in LF until Kirilloff or Larnach unseats him. He is the DH next year if he proves his AAA and short MLB performance was not a fluke.

I hate to say it but how good we be looking had they drafted Gore. ouch! I can't really blame them because drafting a high school pitcher 1/1 is a risky proposition but man would I like to have Gore now.

I have stated in the past that one potential approach would be to take it in the shorts this year. Take a 3 year approach that would require more measured spending over the next 2-3 years. This approach takes advantage of a buyers market so I don't disagree in principal. However, that's not what happened here and its not the point. Many absolutely plucked a number out of the air or just hoped they would return to a record level of payroll. As I said, I don't mind the blindly optimistic approach until someone suggests it's boneheaded, joke, etc. Revenue grew for some companies as a result of the pandemic. The fact that your daughters company did not lay-off anyone is anecdotal. It may or may not be relevant. However, the premise that spending follows revenue is about as basic as it gets. We also need to look beyond this year to evaluate this off-season. The team really needed to make room given the number of quality corner OFers ready to contribute. This was also the year to transition Lewis and a couple of SPs. Establishing these players puts us in a very strong position. It's impossible to evaluate this off-season properly without mapping next season. Not with absolute specifics but in concept. In other words, assuming one of the OF prospects transitions. One of the SPs are promoted. What does it look like with or without Lewis taking over at SS, etc.

I had the same reaction. However, we don't know how these guys performed at the alternate site. It could be they want to start Duran and Balazovic together to determine who is most ready to contribute. Then, promote one of them after a few weeks. Less chance of injury in warmer weather too.

Here is the problem. Who projected $140M? I did not see any such projection from the Twins. The $140M projection was a wish and the number was pulled out of the air. Some fans hoped the team would spend the equivalent to the record high payroll set last year. Is this reasonable? Well, what is the basis of any budget? Revenue, right? I think it’s fair to say any young man/woman coming out of college with a business degree knows this to be true. Is there any chance revenue will be unaffected by the pandemic? Is that even remotely reasonable. Of course not. Best case scenario IMO is a $30M with a most likely case scenario of $40-50M. We can quibble over the exact number but the impact is going to be significant. Therefore, the problem is not the FO if you expect spending to be unaffected. I don’t object to strongly to these really poorly formed positions until posters insist the actions are “a joke” initiated by “boneheads”. The problem is not what Falvey does not understand. The problem is what fans often don’t understand about the decision making process and responsibilities of the FO. Go ahead ... watch closely. Just don't assume the people qualified to make these decisions are idiots especially if you don't have the financial acumen to understand spending should not remain the same when a revenue reduction is certain.

I would take an even money bet that 3 from the following list get a shot in 2021. Maybe even 4 with one or two of them being used out of the BP. Duran / Balzovic / Canterino / Enlow / Sands / Winder / Ober. Make it 5 if you don't count Colina's 1/3 of an inning in 2020.

I did not mention it because I don't know if this is true and neither do you. Once again you take a hard stance on a conclusion that is a product of a poorly conceived conclusion. Revenue grew more than wages the last couple of years. You don’t know what happened to profit. Do you suppose the Cardinals expenses went up going from 250 to 400 employees. Did they perhaps spend less on players because other costs absorbed the available budget dollars? I mention the Cardinals because of an article where this was mentioned. All of the teams are investing in non-player employees and programs. The problem here is that you don't understand an increase in profit does not insure an increase in profit. Regardless, I am not the least bit concerned how the new CBA impacts player compensation or team profits. The context of my comments was a product of poster’s feeling bad for the players. MLB players are the most fortunate group of individuals on the planets. The suggestion that it’s too onerous they be tied to one team for a long period of time is ridiculous. They are perfectly willing to be tied (many even prefer) to be tied to one team as long as their income is maximized. I also don’t measure the adequacy of compensation based on if it goes up every year. I don’t measure fairness based on if a company is profitable or not. My wife’s company is wildly profitable. She still gets paid based on what the market is willing to pay for her skillset. I ask questions like what would an alternative employer, in this case another league be willing to pay? The next highest paying league pays about 12% of MLB wages. This would lead me to conclude MLB players are paid very well. I ask would these players be happy with ¼ of the pay if that’s what revenue dictated. I have a hard time feeling like someone is not adequately compensated if they would be willing to do for ¼ of the wages. I don’t care what happened the last couple of years. I look at how a given group has done financially over a decade or two or even longer if good data is available. In other words, how has MLB player compensation grown compared to other professions? How high is their compensation compared to other professions? When I do this, I find that MLB compensation grown at the same rate as every other American over the past 50 years, MLB players would earn $198,000 on average. Did we consider them disadvantaged or taken advantage of in 1970? Since then, there income has grown 22X more than the rest of America. I find the concept that they are not paid enough to be absolutely absurd. I also don’t care about owner profits. That will be governed by market forces that they all signed up for. What I care about is all of the teams having a reasonable chance at success. I care about a good product on the field for as many teams as possible. Therefore, I am not worried about length of control. If players don’t find the $4.4M average salary adequate to relinquish the right to choose where they play their first 6 seasons, they have the right to pursue a different profession just like all of the rest of us.

Try looking at it from a slightly different angle. The 2018 team was not going to be a contender with or without any of the players that were traded. By trading them there is a very good chance a player or players received in the trade will provide a great fan experience for all of us for 6+ years. What if Duran turns into a front of the rotation starter? How much fun would that be for 6+ years? We can also look at it knowing these additions could elevate the team and contribute to a playoff run. Might all go to crap but acquiring these players has a much better chance of producing winning baseball than keeping those free agents on until the end of 2018.

The reason you and many other fans find themselves at odds with the front office is that your evaluation is from a micro perspective. The front office takes a more macro approach. Your approach is that they COULD spend $10M on Rosario if the elected to do so. Their approach is that $10M spent on Rooker or Cave + Simmons is a considerably better roster. Again, they are also looking past this year. How do you get better if you don’t develop players at the ML level? I also have a different fan perspective. Rosario was definitely one of my favorite Twins. Now, I don’t care to watch the high percentage of absolutely horrible ABs and mistakes in the field. I would rather watch one of the young guys develop into a player we can enjoy for several years. Bottom line is that fans with a macro view or a decidedly short-term focus are always going to be at odds with the front office. It’s not their fault for acting in the best interest of the team.

I did not quote Jeremy for a reason. My comments were in the grand scheme. Jeremy's ideas have merit but would take some time to consider which is why I made a general comment.

My only real concern with the new CBA is how it impacts parity and the relative ability of our team to compete. I don’t know why any fan is worried about how much the players get. Player compensation has increased and a mind boggling rate for 50+ years. The average TD household would be earning $3.17M annually if our wages had increased at the same rate. The average player makes almost 100 times the average adult in the US. Top players make more than 500 times the average. How much is enough? Why are we worried about player salaries while paying a hefty toll to attend games in a decent seat and $10 for a beer. Let’s worry about the sanctity of the game and further advantaging large markets is not consistent with protecting the game. I really doubt significantly increasing revenue sharing is going to fly. How do you ask the large market owners to agree to drastically reduce the value of their franchise and their income? The new owners would really be taking it in the shorts. The players would certainly not agree to anything that would have significant negative financial impact. Having said this … Increased revenue sharing and anything else that improves parity is what I most hope to see from the new CBA I also don’t see the financial upside for players most seem to think will result from less years of control. Teams are not going to spend more because players are free agents earlier. Their budgets are based on revenue. A spending floor would increase spending somewhat because those clubs have available funds. The downside would be that they would be forced to sign veterans instead of developing their prospects. I assume that’s not what we would want as fans if our team was rebuilding.

I think you give up your right to criticize the team’s effort to improve if you are unwilling to trade pending free agents at the deadline when the team is not a contender. This is anything but “boneheaded”. Do you really look around the league at the deadline and wonder why all these bonehead teams are stupid enough to trade away pending free agents? Literally ever GM in the league makes these trades. The Yankees traded away Chapman. Do you think Yankee fans think that move was boneheaded now? The relative value of trading of Escobar is still to be seen. If Duran ends up being an average BP guy it’s a modest win. It’s a big win if he becomes a high leverage RP. In the event he reaches something close to his ceiling, this is the kind of move that dramatically improves a team. This is exactly the type of move that opens or extends a window. The extremely shortsighted approach you advocate is a really good way to ensure mitigating relative success over the long-term. Escobar and Lynn were not going to get that team to the playoffs. At best the net result would have been a couple extra wins. It's possible Duran / Maciel / Alcala and Celestino all falme out. However, I think it’s fair to believe those trades will very likely have significant benefit over the course of 6-7 years. To forego that possibility for a couple regular season wins would be absolute incompetence so I really don’t understand labeling it “boneheaded”.

None of the members of "Most of us" have ever made a case based on performance that Kirilloff is the best option on opening day. All of "most of us" have only seen Kirilloff play one game in the last year and his Milb performance prior most certainly does not suggest he is the best prepared on opening day. Therefore, the premise that it is service time manipulation has a very weak foundation. I would bet that Rookers family is 100% convinced he has the better resume in terms of readiness. Jake cave has proven he can play at this level and he is a better defender. A case could even be made for Garlic being the better prepared on opening day based on the fact he produced a 1057 OPS at AAA with 300ABs and has ML experience. Point being that the accusation of service time manipulation is not as logical as your statement suggests. Now, if the Twins feel the alternate site was a reliable predictor or readiness, so be it but none of the people in the group of "most of us" had access to that evidence. I also did not agree with the assumption Arraez would start in LF. As I stated previously, he is very poor defensively in the OF and his bat does not profile as a corner OFer. Had we targeted a free agent with the exact profile the FO would have been ridiculed so I don't understand the surprise Arraez wont be played in LF.