Major League Ready

I doubt their plans to have Lewis take over are changed. They are more likely delayed and they are not going to delay that plan for several years. So, I doubt they pursue these FAs especially if they hope to extend both Buxton and Berrios.

I would rather extend or resign Berrios. However, it is possible we could develop enough pitching over the next couple years to cover up his departure. CF is much more questionable. Celestino is our only real hope so his ascension would be crucial. We could possibly afford both if we develop enough pitching and Lewis becomes the SS we all hope he can be. Trading Sano in a year or two would also facilitate keeping both.

The disconnect here is not that I want Thad Levine's job, I have had that job and Falvey's job, just in a different industry. They are not my hero. They are peers which is why I don't appreciate the constant references the FO being "boneheads". It's not hero worship. I am just certain the guy that does not get it is you.

So, in other words, you don't want to be bothered with indisputable facts?

You are absolutely correct that there have been a number of superstars who got to the ML level with less than 1,000 ABS. I would not be shocked if he got some playing time at the MLB level this year much like Polanco did for a few games. However, if you are suggesting it's reasonable to expect the same path for a guy drafted 1/1 who became a 1st ballot hall of famer and a 22 yo that has never been on a top 100 list and has a total of 33 ABs above low A , you are probably reAAAAAAAAly reaching.

It's easier to complain when you don't have any facts or information to impede your logic for complaining.

I too have high hopes for Celestino but recognize we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. He has 33ABs at A+. It's great he is creating a buzz. There is a good chance he is pushed but the young man has barely scratched A+. My hope is that he can be ready sometime next year so he can get enough time to determine if he can take over for Buxton when he becomes a FA at the end of 22. Anything beyond that would be a bonus.

Looking back at 2019 (because 2020 stats are of questionable substance) the top 3 offensive teams were the Astros / Twins & Yankees. Their L vs R handed top producers with 200+ ABs is as follows. The Astros top 5 were RH. Coming in 6th was Michael Brantley. They had 3 others with a wRC+ above 100. They are all RHed. Among the Yankees top 9 in wRC+ (included Encanacion w/197 ABs) 8 of 9 were RH. The Twins had 3 players that really stood out in wRC+. Cruz at 163, Garver at 155, and Sano at 137. Of course, they are all RH. The Twins did have a good mix among the rest of the contributors. Arraez was next followed by Kepler then Polanco. Cave and Buxton had above average production coming in at 113 and 111. The twins also had 5 players with a league average wRC+. Rosario with a wRC+ of 103 was 9th on the team by this measure. Adrianza - 102 Schoop - 100 Castro - 103 Cron 101 It does not appear that LH balance is essential to a strong offense.

I would not be a bit surprised if Bauer opts out after this season. 2021 was a bad year to be a free agent. Next year will be better if we actually play. If we don't play, he opts out for 23. As you point out, they are not assuming the normal risk associated with this type of FA. They also lose the Jansen / Kelly and Kershaw contract commitments after this year. Price & Turner come off after 22. They have a lot of options which I would bet is what they were aiming for as they put together this roster.

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.

My bad! I skipped to the end and did not see the previous posts. I went in the wrong direction not having that context. I, Reusse was a little off-center here. IMO, Seth's post where he said "It absolutely is how it should be, and it totally makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that wasn't always the thinking." He was responding to someone who asked "Shouldn't players be paid for what they are expected to produce rather than for what they have produced in the past?" My point is the statement the modern game no longer favors players like Dozier is not exactly accurate. The game has never favored someone with Dozier's early decline. What has changed is simple. Team leadership is in the hands of people with different skill sets as compared to even a decade ago. This has lead to different business practices and much more sophisticated decision making practices. This is evidenced by the last couple FA classes. Productive players are still getting paid. Teams simply are not willing to assume that production will remain at the same level for several years because the evidence is overwhelming shows it will not. In an odd way, these horrible contracts had one positive affect. Big market teams invested in these huge contracts and many of them were bad enough to actually suppress their revenue advantage. The Dodgers have become much more measured in their approach and the Yankees are getting there as well. Philadelphia and the LA Angels are examples of the perils of trying to buy a team. It's fair to assume most teams are going to get better and better in terms of understand the financial and economics metrics of the game. IMO, the take away from this article should have been parity has never been more at risk. As fans, we should all quit worrying about which side fairs better economically and get focused on the preservation of the game.

On what basis have you concluded the revenue increase was a product of signing Pujlos? Revenue went up across the league during that decade and the revenue chart looks like that for most teams. Are you really suggesting that fans come to the park because the Angels have a guy who used to be great even though he has played at below replacement level for several years? The revenue increases were primarily things that Pujlos had very little influence over like national TV deals, shared gates, etc.

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.