Jham

I like Boyd's upside, personally. However, don't think the Tigers would trade him in the division. They're calling up 2018 first overall pick Casey Mize up this spring along with another potential stud. They'll likely hope to compete by the end of Boyds contract.

Well actually many practically screamed to add pitching LAST year. FO admitted they didn't know what they had. They said we had to wait and see what Sano and Buxton did (despite 2019 being THE year for the last 5 years). We found out that adding guys via trade wasn't that easy. Many screamed that we needed to add at the deadline or risk wasting an 11 game division lead (we lost that lead) and a 100 win season. We screamed that we should be adding pitching either way because of our expiring contracts and history with FA. Odorizzi accepted a QO that 30 other GMs would have offered. Meanwhile, Gonsalves walked for free, Mejia (top 100s) for free, Hilde free, Burdi free, Rodriguez free, Anderson a nickle. We're darn close to losing Romero, Alcala, and Gordon for nothing. They traded a power-hitting Cf for a pitcher that had recent arm fatigue so close to the deadline they didn't even have time to request a physical. We traded one of the best relievers in baseball period. He signed a reasonable extension. We traded for one of the oldest relievers in baseball. He signed an extension to stay here. We traded away a popular 3rd basement who signed, again with the team that showed they wanted him, for a third less than the utility man we replaced him with. Now we're offering $90 million for a worse third baseman. We could have traded for guys we intended to pursue in free agency and had an inside track on convincing them to stay. Instead we wonder why they want to play elsewhere and feel like our FO isn't committed to winning or paying fair contracts. This sounds like a rip on the current FO. But it's all the same stuff we've seen for 20 years. Santana complained. Hunter complained. Nathan. Dozier. Now Berrios and Buxton. Why reserve credit for the 100 win season? Because the FO has given no credit to the guys that actually went out and won 100 games. Those guys played there hearts out with tired arms, torn ligaments, pulled muscles, concussions... and we didn't get them the breath of fresh air at the deadline. Now we've added no one of significance in FA. We didn't retain Gibby (longest tenured Twin) while we brought back a guy who screwed us with a PED ban and other pitchers with worse profiles. We let 50 Hr walk like it's no big deal. We have thus far given no extensions. We're shopping the vocal leader of the team. And we wonder why no one wants to come here. For the same reasons fans are frustrated, the players have to be frustrated. Why continue playing hard? Playing hurt? What did the 100 wins get them? I mean, they're pros, but they're people first.

Probably because Odo had a career year that arguably trailed off towards his career marks, and Pineda was suspended, is suspended, and wasn't all that good early. Better than nothing. But even the front office isn't trying to sell that retaining those 2 is what they had in mind.

Not that my opinion matters, but Romero's best results have been in starts. I think he's a prime candidate for settling down and taking something off. Focus on location. Let some of that run become sink. Lateral run gets crushed in the big leagues.

Rosario is so close. A more mature approach for a full season gets him there. I'd sort of like to see him play first or third to gain some of his negative outfield war back and make room for Larnach. I think Larnach is close to breaking out. He's only recently started adding power to his game. I'm assuming the power breakthrough is coming and soon. Astudillo is another like Roasie who lacks approach. But has shown adjustments in his recent MiLB history, adding power. On the pitching side, if Thorpe gets his pre tj velocity back or improves command he could be the future top of the rotation guy he was once considered.

Uhhh... what about the wrist? He snapped a tendon. Elected not to have surgery. He winces frequently on whiffs. I don't know how much effect it will have over a full season, but probably considerable, imo.

Teams can be buyers and sellers at the same time. If we use our farm system to trade for help, replenishing the stock would be nice. Letting players walk for nothing is a risk. As currently constructed the pitching gives us little chance of advancing in the playoffs. Neither are expendable, per se, but I'm not sure how much better either of them will be compared to their replacement. If we traded Cruz, added Donaldson and brought up Kiriloff for example. Or we traded Odo and trusted Thorpe or Graterol before trading for Chris Archer. I don't think we're in position to try to add to make a run this year. And next year's rotation may have even more question marks. I'd like to avoid our current pitching situation going forward as much as possible.

Not really close to true but ok. Rentals score nice prospects at the deadline every single season.

Sure, you say that now. In July if we're in 3rd place and 4 games under .500? If we are in contention, the rotation presumably would be holding up. We have a very low chance of retaining odorizzi who should be one of the hottest commodities in FA next season. Letting him and Cruz walk for nothing is a risk. But yes, return expectations should be tempered. Also I included Cruz. Cruz for controllable pitching, Odorizzi for near-ready pitching prospects. I also agree that Jim and co. should sell the team.

6 man rotation. Keep everyone fresh. Rotate the final rotation spot with Rochester. Littell is a giant regression candidate. His xFIP was about double his era.

I think we need to at least consider shopping both Odorizzi and especially Cruz. They're both exploring contracts. If they can return either a blue chip prospect or controllable pitching I think you have to consider it at least at the trade deadline. I do not think Cruz's wrist or Odo's career homerun and walk rates will allow replication of last year. Other than that, I think we start airing through our expansion candidates and use the FA money to lock up who we want to keep, and trade those we don't want or who don't intend to re-sign.

I mean, that's all that's left at this point. If we are going to trade for an impact arm, we should have done it last year. We caught lightning in a bottle for half the season. Wins don't carry over. I'll agree that the FO has done an amazing job of turning leftovers and clearance items into a gourmet meal, but no one's getting it confused for Manny's. There's only so many ways to improve your team, especially a good team. Bad teams have upgrade opportunities all over. Good teams have fewer holes. Upgrading an already good roster typically means adding stars or even super stars. This is why the top FA and trade candidates usually require "overpayment". Opportunities to improve already good teams are scarce. We've missed on opportunities to improve a good team. I think it's hubris to assume that 2019 is the real Twins and 2018 an aberration.

It's absurd to suggest that you can't balance the 2. We could make several moves and still be well within budget now and down the line. Imagine if Taylor Rogers suddenly needed Tommy John (Greg Holland). Then Sano tore his ACL. (moose) Now imagine Berrios throwing 102 mph and building your rotation around that, but then he dies in a car crash. (Ventura). We probably trade everyone away and lose 100 too. The 2016 Royals had some of the worst luck I've ever seen for a team. You should probably at least mention their young controllable ace and world series hero dying as a part of their fall off, just to be fair...

Cheif's right. You're sort of hard to have a debate with. 1st, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I was simply responding to your claim that people who complain that "ownership is cheap" do so without thought or reason. You may disagree with my logic, but obviously, there's a lot of thought that went in to my position. Regarding extending prospects. I definitely do not believe every organization tries to squeeze its own players as hard as they can under the CBA. It's obviously a factor, but so is fundamental fairness. An organization can choose to use the CBA to drag down salary, or acknowledge it as part of making fair offers. Lastly, I never said the FO or ownership wasn't trying to win. You're intentionally misconstruing my statements and it's not working. Obviously they're trying to win while balancing cost and revenue and team value and personal values like standing in the community and legacy for the Pohlads, and job security and resume for the FO. Falvey and Levine flat out made sustained winning their mission when they were signed. There are times when sustained winning bumps up against winning now. I believe that a lot over decisions we make to further that mission statement are actually counterproductive. Particularly viewing each specific transaction from a primarily fiscal perspective. Each deal or non- deal is responsible enough. Cumulatively, it may not fulfill team needs, it may caused players to lose faith, it may cause other organizations and agents to not want to deal with us. As for the yearly budget, the team has said cost savings don't carry over. Every year is reviewed on its own merits, and the budget is always flexible if the perfect deal came along. In short, the front office's fiscally responsible approach is very reasonable in light of their goal of sustained success. You can reasonably agree with them. I can reasonably say that championships are more important. I am actually more neutral on this point. However, I can also say that overvaluing fiscal responsibility could reasonably be detrimental to sustained success, and nearly fatal in regard to winning a world series, and back that up with facts and reasoned arguments. They're both just theories. So please be respectful and stop twisting my words.

I haven't seen enough of AK or Larnach, but from what I've seen, they're both very close to not just breaking through, but smashing their way in. They both flash power and are at a point where they could add elite power, at which point Bellinger, Yelich Connors come into play. Both would need to take a major jump in that regard of course, and it's unlikely either will. But if I had to predict, it would be one of them. Larnach has the more natural pull stroke, so I give him the slight edge to make that jump like Kepler did. Oddly, I'd pick Tortuga next. He already has an elite skill and already started adding power. Like Arraez, he's hit at every level, even showing he can hit for stretches in the bigs. A healthy season, better approach, and 1 more step forward makes him very valuable. Thorpe never regained his velo after TJ did he? If he gets back to mud 90s heat, he jumps up big time.

I think you're getting "lack of analysis" mixed up with an "overall impression" or "general synopsis": basically a conclusion reached after years of analysis. You're cutting the ownership spending analysis off the same way you're accusing others of cutting off the Wheeler analysis. I'll try to provide some context and nuance. Wheeler and Bumgardner were 2 of, and perhaps, our top 2 targets in free agency. Acquiring "impact pitching" was the stated goal of both the FO and fanbase. Not coincincidently, these were two of our top targets at the trade deadline as well. Now perhaps a trade for a mere rental only gives us a better chance of upsetting the Yankees. Or perhaps it gives us a foot in the door to signing them. Perhaps it shows a commitment to winning. Maybe it shows Wheeler or Madbum how much more we value them compared to the competition at a time they might not have been feeling the love from their own teams. Perhaps they see a passionate fanbase chanting their name and wanting them to stay. Perhaps they build friendships, and find August evenings in the 70s agreeable. Maybe they see that our high taxes correspond with great schools, that our northern lakes have better bass fishing than most southern reservoirs, that Canterbury Park has higher purses for similar horses compared to Turf Paradise. Perhaps sending the message that players we plan on targeting in FA are mere "rentals" at the trade dead line has consequences. Perhaps that line of logic is as equally unsound as "we can always get Escobar back at the end of the year." (Escobar extended any AZ before hitting FA for less money than Marwin while putting up better numbers than Kris Bryant). In the alternative, showing a player we want them more than everyone else, that we believe in them enough to give up a prospect knowing we're taking a risk probably at least keeps Wheeler's agent from telling us "don't bother" as some are suggesting. Hence "cheap". Perhaps we view Minnesota as an awesome place to play that doesn't require a foot in the door. But no doubt, if we're not going to show players why they should come here, we shouldn't be surprised when they don't pick us, and then the only way we can show them we want them more is more money and more years which we don't do. Hence "cheap". I'm also not sure December is the ideal time to market MN as a great place to play baseball. Thank goodness Odo took the QO, but I bet he's not happy. Are we giving him reasons to want to stay. Think what a scramble we'd be in if he turned it down. So anyway. We're now in position to make a trade. But every other team is tied with us in the standings. Our trade partners have heard our FO talking, have noticed us missing on free agents, and know they have leverage. Talk of trades before opening day will shift to trades at the deadline. Will cycle back to not overpaying for rentals, etc. The single most likely trade we are likely to make regarding or rotation is selling off Odorizzi at the trade deadline. The Polanco and Kepler contracts are viewed as smart, team-friendly deals. Do you think that's how players view them? Or is cheap an accurate description? Do you think those deals make Berrios, Sano, or Buxton trust the FO more or less? The organization has subtly marketed frugality as intelligence. The "get to know 'em" campaign that suggested that following new young players making league minimum was a more satisfying fan experience than actually winning is a concept that still resonates. To this day, we don't trade away prospects, we market them, we compare them, we heap expectations. We called ourselves "small market" before the numbers showed we're mid market and extolled the "Twins Way". We convinced a fan base that it should be proud of being competitive on the cheap. These organizational concepts stuck to the point where after 2 decades people don't question lunacy like single-year budgets with no carryover, no contract discussions after spring training, prospects aren't moved for prospects, young position players are more valuable than young pitchers, players are never traded before the deadline. And finally, we can always get so and so via trade until we can always get so and so via FA. We were upset the Jays didn't circle back on Stroman. The only way that's upsetting is if we didn't intend to beat that offer. The only way they don't circle back is if our prior discussions were so lowball, it wasn't considered worth it. Bottom line, there's way more analysis that goes into the feeling that the front office overvalues the financial implications of single deals compared to overall longterm budget, competitiveness, championships, and fan input. Like waiting for 2020s to come out before purchasing a 2019 vehicle makes sense in a vaccuum, but you might sacrifice color and features, and not get the vehicle you really wanted by then, and while you're waiting for that "perfect deal" you're own vehicle might drop a transmission and head gasket, and you'll lose all your trade value and have to buy something you didn't even want just to get to work.

Moncada, Eloy Jiminez, Giolito, Kopech,Cease, Fulmer, Rodon... That's a TON of young blue chip talent. Like not top 100, like top 10 to top overall talent... Sox are scary THIS year.

Here's the thing. We were told we shouldn't get free agents while we were rebuilding even though signing free agents is a way to shorten the rebuild. We were told we should only get free agents to put the boot on the throat as we entered a window with still cheap talent hitting their prime. Then we're told that lengthy contracts (a requirement for top free agents) are dumb because it limits you going forward. And it feels like we're being punked.

Disagree. Many saw this coming last season. We had an opportunity to add pitchers via trade and didn't. Baumgardner signed a very beatable offer. Gleeman and the Geek were guaranteeing 100 mil for him. Stroman was traded for an offer we apparently intended to beat. We bemoan the fact that no one wants to play here, but ignore the fact that one of the main reasons they don't is because we won't commit to winning. You've been posting for like 1 season. The cultural image regarding the front office's commitment to winning is going on 2 decades and 3 gms. To some extent, perception is reality because it effects whether players want to come here and whether players want to stay here. For instance, I doubt players are as in love with Kepler's and Polanco's as this fan base seems to be. Maybe it was fair. I dunno. Wouldn't doubt if it costs us other extensions going forward.

I don't think you can do that anymore with the 26 man roster and 15 day recall limitation going into effect this year. I was a huge advocate for use of options and the shuttle for several years, and was delighted when we used it, and more delighted when it worked. But I can't justify shuttling a better arm down to bring a fresher arm up knowing that I can't get the better arm back for 15 days. We should see the return of the traditional long man now. (I'd still prefer he have options) That said, I would certainly look at the use of a shuttle to rotate a 6th starter to keep the rotation (Berrios) fresh. It appears that between Thorpe, Graterol, Romero (hopefully a starter), Smeltzer, and Dobnak that we will easily have the interchangeable depth to pull it off. Each pitcher would rotate up for a start every 15 to 18 days. With off days, a particular pitcher could be used as much as every other trip through the rotation. The cycle would probably start with a pitcher being rostered and reserved as an extra long man for 5 days (perhaps with a short appearance mixed in), starting the 6th day and then exchanging places. Of course, if anyone performs great, you might keep them up rather than skipping them. Actually, I'm kind of selling myself on this the more I'm talking about it...

But criticizing criticism of the front office isn't a waste of time? What about my post criticizing the criticizing of the front office criticism? You may consider the article regurgitation of other complaints, I saw it as a summary. Reasonable, direct, and apropos given the end of winter meetings.

Assuming Rosario is on the team, his first half was all-star level. The team was legit one of the very best teams in baseball. Then he got hurt, lost his approach, and the team played average ball the rest of the year. If Rosie just watched the ball into the glove, stayed patient like the first half, and hit the cutoff man, he'd be a huge boost. Buxton was another catalyst who only needs to maintain his level and stay healthy. Berrios also swooned midsummer when the team declined into mediocrity. La Makina's legendary fitness routine might need tweaking top provider for more rest as he gets older.

I meant no disrespect. The article was well written. Like i said, it seemed like a large detail to overlook, subjectively. Obviously the money involved stuck out to me much more than others. The revisionist history thing was not directed at you and in any case, was over the line.

Oh goodness. I was going off the top of my head from memory. When I said DFA, I meant Rule 5. Twins traded for him in June and had to add him in November. Regardless, I didn't think he was worth $4 mil. It just stuck out to me because I thought it was interesting putting an actual dollar amount on the value of a prospect, and really interesting in realizing that the value is almost all held by the owners. Like we'd spend $4mil for a borderline prospect, and Littell wouldn't get a cent of it.

Whoa. Sort of a big deal to get wrong since the article states the exact opposite. The Twins didn't GET cash, we ate $4 plus mil for the Yankees. So we gave up Ynoa plus $4 million to get Littel who may have been dfa'd by the Yankees anyway. The revisionist history on this site lately...