Major League Ready

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.

Brock, I give you props for a taking a reasonable approach. You defined mediocrity in a reasonable way and you used a significant sample size. It would have added validity if you had compared other clubs with similar revenue. However, it would not have mattered. A lot of people don’t care about a reasonable definition which is why none of them challenged your definition. In any academic or business setting that would be the primary focus. If posters accept your definition, it’s very difficult to dispute your conclusion. That’s not going to happen universally here. Fans are fanatical. Their expectation is well beyond reason and what they really want to do is bitch about those expectations not being met. You framing it in a reasonable way to quantify results provides a reasonable way to draw a conclusion. Some fans are not interested in such a thought process.

I think you are overlooking that I prefaced my statement with I hope they make an offer fair to both sides. IDK how you are interpreting this but how can it be fair to both sides if it does not reflect the market? Then, assuming a fair offer I added I hoped Buxton would accept a fair offer. I think you have a predisposed notion driving how you are interpreting this because it seems pretty straight forward to me. The information we have (for what its worth) is that they agreed on the guarantee. Which side was being unreasonable in terms of incentive is hard to know. I agree that FA rarely lose out in free agency. That's why so many insist on going through the process which supports my position. I can also agree the Desmond example has little weight. However, the numerous examples of teams unable to extend players is somethings fans elect to ignore when they speak as if there is nothing to it. Just get them signed. I would add that pretending the Twins or any other below average revenue team has an equal shot at free agents is pure denial. The fact that even teams with big revenue like Boston suffer this fate is a bit simplistic but relevant none the less in the context of this is bound to happen so why to fans have a fit and insist it should not happen.

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 not really sure what you are asking or what point you are trying to make now. There are countless examples where teams were unable to come to terms with a player they attempted to extend. My original point was a response to someone insisting this is a Twins problem. History is quite clear that other teams, especially below average revenue teams trading these players instead of losing them for nothing. It’s really quite common for players to start out with an asking price considerably higher than the market will bear. Ian Desmond comes to mind because he got an extension offer considerably above what he ended up getting but there are many others. There are also many examples of players who ended up getting an outrageous amount and the team letting them walk dodged a bullet. The Cardinals are well run and they let Pujlos go. That contract hurt the Angels badly for 5 years. Of course, they also resigned Jason Heyward instead of letting him go and that was a mistake. The Yankees let Ellsbury go. You may remember there was someone here who insisted the Twins needed to sign him. The primary point here being even the high revenue teams part with players. It's also not a complicated premise that lower revenue teams have to be more careful given these players represent a much higher percentage of available payroll when compared to the top revenue teams. It’s also very clear some players insist on testing free agency and there are also many examples of players who did not get anywhere near what they started out asking. The constant insistence it’s a Twins thing requires we simply ignore very clear facts/examples.

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.

Apparently you have inside information none of us have. I have no idea the details of this offer. Therefore, it would be by definition an ignorant conclusion if I were to form any strong opinion. Therefore, I have no opinion on if any of the parties involved are acting reasonably or unreasonably. Perhaps more to the point, I made a very specific point. That point was that there are numerous examples of teams trading high profile players instead of letting them walk for nothing. This is something that history is quite clear on. I seriously doubt you actually know any specifics of the offer in question and we also can't say we really know what Buxton or Berrios market price will be. It sounds like a fanatical / uniformed rant to me.

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.

Thanks for that info. That's a relief in a way. I was wondering if their coaches had an impact that quickly which would be a little depressing. The ability is there he just can't seem to harness it with any consistency. It's going to be interesting to see how much he improved his stock with this playoff run. He was looking at $5M or less before September and the playoff run.

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?

I agree the odds of field a contender in 2022 are slim. What I don't agree with is ... If you are going to accept a 500 or slightly above team in 2022, then take 2022 to develop pitching. Invest in the future if you are not contending. This roster punts a year and fills the rotation so that you can't give our prospects time. Yes, I realize injuries will probably present opportunities but either put a contender on the field or make the investment in roster spots to develop a staff internally. Also, we have a lot of guys who can play corner OF. If you get Chris Taylor, play him at SS until you come up with a better option. If you are successful and develop a couple more starters, all that payroll and prospect capital you invested in 2022 can be directed toward final pieces, whatever they might be. Should we want to follow a plan to be a respectable in 2022 and a fringe contender in 2023 or do we want to follow a path in 2022 that provides the best chance of producing a contender in 2023? Maybe I have a flawed assumption in that I believe playing time at the ML level is important in developing pitchers. I see plan after plan filling the rotation with established SPs that will probably give us a good team in 2022 but little realistic chance of being a true contender.

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.

Gray is going to get a QA so no way does he take 3/30. My guess is 3/40. He might even get 4 years from someone. Next year is his age 30 season and a lot of the better FAs are quite old. That package won't land Manaea, IMO. I would hope the Twins FO would not trade away any meaningful prospects for 1 year of control. Therefore, I don't see the Twins trading for Manaea. The only time you see teams making that kind of trade is when they are already a serious contender.

It would be really interesting to know if Atlanta's coaches actually influenced change. They did not even use him the first month he was there. He had 11 PAs. Were they working on something? After Sept 1 he had 98 PAs and an OPS of 916. It drove me crazy they just let him continue to take horrible ABs. He obviously has talent but outside of Kirby and Vlad Guererro, swinging at balls a foot outside the zone is not going to work.

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?