Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

chpettit19

Community Leader
  • Posts

    2,231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Everything posted by chpettit19

  1. He better start 2023 on a high note or he'll continue moving towards the top of the list for guys to be removed from the 40-man next year. He's got too much upside to take him off now, but if he starts next year the way he started this year he'll lose his 40-man spot pretty quick. Little glimmer of hope here in September, but he's got a long ways to go. Hopefully he's able to get his body, and mind, right during the offseason and hit the ground running come February in Fort Meyers. 2023 is a make or break year for him with the Twins. Hope he makes instead of breaks!
  2. At SS? The Astros decided to rely on a rookie who'd never stepped foot on a major league field before instead of extending Carlos Correa. Or are we just going to ignore that? The Astros were/are trying to win the World Series, could have afforded Carlos Correa, but didn't extend him before or during last season. So, by your breakdown of options, they're a "driftless (sic) team." So, yeah, I'm going to stick with you just manufacturing things to be mad about because you dislike the FO and want to pile on another thing they screwed up when the reality of the situation is this is playing out the exact same way that multiple situations play out as each and every season in every major sport in America. I notice you skipped all the other examples I laid out of situations playing out the same way last year, and this very season with players at his very position.
  3. Why would he not get the same deal Corey Seager just got? I'd be absolutely shocked if he settled for 10/275 and came in 50 mil lower than Seager. There's no reason to think he won't get the same 10/325 Seager got, or better.
  4. I don't get how anyone is surprised by this kind of comment or that he's going to go wherever he gets paid the most. This was literally always how things were going to play out unless he had a major injury. Corey Seager got 10/325 last year coming off a season with 3.7 bWAR and not having played more than 134 games in a season since 2017. Correa has 5.3 bWAR this year after having 7.2 last year and will be coming off 3 mostly healthy years. He was never going to opt in. He was never going to take any deal that was less than 10/325 before he hit the market again. So the only discussion that should be happening is whether or not the Twins should've just handed him 10/325 instead of this opt-out deal, or if they should've handed him 10/325 during the season, or if they should be offering it to him now. Any numbers below that weren't things that he would've signed. He didn't fire his old agent and hire Boras for any reason other than getting 10/325+.
  5. So the Astros need to fire their FO? They did the exact same thing with Correa last year the Twins are doing this year. Letting him hit the market and see if he can get somebody to pay his asking price. The Braves did it with Freeman. Yankees are currently doing it with Judge. Dodgers doing it with Turner. Braves and Swanson. Red Sox and Bogaerts. Rockies with Story last year. That's a bunch of "driftless teams" who win a lot of games (plus the Rockies). It's almost like this is actually a pretty normal situation that plays out 100% of seasons and it's how big free agents are ever on the market. The FO has plenty of things for us to be mad about, we don't need to exaggerate situations and act like they aren't normal to add to the pile of complaints they've already earned. Correa was never going to accept anything from the Twins before hitting the market again that wasn't at least 10 years 325 mil to match Seager. Should the Twins have given him that? I wouldn't, but maybe people think they should. I wouldn't go over 7 years and I'd wait for the offseason to see if he can get someone to go 10/325 or if I have a shot at 7 years 250. Not everything is just the FO being terrible at their jobs.
  6. Which is all good. I never have my phone out at games, but if there were statcast data metrics that I could follow after a great play I'd probably look them up. My friends and family already get cranky with me spitting out stats and pointing out exit velos during the game, but I like that kind of stuff. Having it as an option would probably help engage some of the younger generation that is more into the tech side of things. I don't think it hurts to have the option if people want it.
  7. Twins in a tough spot with these 3. Wallner hasn't played enough for me to pencil him into a starting spot just yet, but if you have him as your 26th man who plays RF/DH I don't think it's the worst spot to be in for the squad. But if he starts the year in AAA as the first in line for a callup I don't think that's bad either. He's on that border, which is nice to have in a young player with control. Larnach showed he could make some adjustments coming into the year, and was doing well using the whole field before his injuries kicked in. He wasn't lighting the world on fire, and it's 2 straight years of season ending injuries, so he wouldn't be penciled into any sort of starting role for me either. Same as Wallner in that I'd be fine with him as the 26th guy capable of playing LF/RF/DH, or the first callup available from St Paul. Kirilloff is the toughest for me as I think it's pretty clear he's the most talented out of the 3 in the batter's box, but that wrist just isn't something you can count on. Hopefully he's back swinging a bat before the end of the offseason and he can, and does, give honest reports to the team about how the wrist is feeling. If he's back to himself by January (I don't know his expected timeline, so maybe this isn't even possible) and the team can see him swinging like normal I'd be happy with him at 1B/LF/RF/DH on the opening day roster. But you just can't count on this surgery fixing things completely so I wouldn't go into the offseason penciling him in either. Left-handed cOF/DH definitely wouldn't be at the top of my wish list for the offseason if I were the Twins FO, but I also wouldn't have that box checked off in pen. What's Conforto going to get in a deal? Seems like he could be a nice pillow contract guy who just needs a year to show he's back. That'd be perfect for the Twins to give them a veteran who could fill that role early, and be a trade option at the deadline if one, or more, of these 3 show they're healthy and talented in the first half. If none of the 3 claim a spot you can look to extend Conforto if he's back to being himself. I'd focus more on bringing in a right-handed OF bat, but I think a solid veteran lefty should also be brought in for a little more insurance on these 3 being ready, and able, to lock down a starting spot. All too good to just toss aside, but too many question marks to count on. Not an ideal spot to be in.
  8. Which mythical player was hitting .276 with 16 homeruns while displaying excellent fielding skills at the deadline? Cuz Eric Hosmer currently has 8 homeruns on the season. He was hitting .272 at the deadline, and hit .225 with Boston before getting injured and replaced.
  9. I think I explained the parity I was looking for pretty clearly, and then you chose to disagree with my comment which is what lead us here. I'm not suggesting just limiting the Dodgers, but raising the abilities of other teams. There would still be terribly run teams that struggle, and well run teams that can form dynasties. But it'd be based on owner and FO abilities, not deeper pockets. That's what I want. No equal results, just equal opportunity.
  10. Who says they haven't been spending more money here or there and having seasons they lose money? They lost money in 2020 for sure, and likely lost money last year and this year. The Dodgers lost money in 2020, but haven't lost money in any other season for the last decade I'd bet. All while spending almost triple what the Twins do. I don't get how you don't see that as an advantage and how that leads to teams like the Twins literally not being able to afford guys. They lost that trio (I didn't list the entirity of players they lost over the last 16 years, don't be like that) because they couldn't afford them while also building a competitive team around them. Which equals not being able to afford them. Yes, they could've signed Hunter to twice the contract they offered, but then they'd have had to lose other guys to fit him in their budget. The Angels didn't "overpay him" just because the Twins didn't go higher than $45M. That's a false connection. Hunter had WARs of 3.5, 5.3, 3, 3.6, and 5.4 during that contract. They absolutely didn't "overpay him." And the Santana return was pretty universally pegged as being disappointing. Even before all the prospects failed. And, again, the point is they HAD to trade him because they couldn't afford him, but the Mets could. That's the entire point here that you're trying to dance around without just admitting that the financial disparity in teams is what leads to these decisions.
  11. That's because of poor team management, that's the point here. They weren't "rebuilding" or tanking for higher draft picks. Cuz the guys they picked after that 6-9 team weren't even under contract anymore by the time last year rolled around. Actually, the guys drafted in the 7-9 year weren't there either. NFL teams tank for a season if there's a big time QB they want, but nobody is sitting around being bad on purpose for multiple years in an attempt to build through the draft because they only get those guys for 4 (or 5 for 1st round picks if the option is picked up) years. But since they have a cap and floor system there are free agents available on the market every year that every team has an equal shot at depending on how they manage their team since the NY teams can't just run up payrolls over 300 million if they want. It's what allows the Jaguars the opportunity to go out and spend a ton in free agency this last offseason and rebuild the majority of their team. That's the entire point here. The failures of the Bengals, Lions, Jets types in the NFL and the Wolves and Clippers types in the NBA is because they're poorly run teams. I think everyone agrees the A's and Guardians have been well run teams for a number of years, but they aren't able to do what the Dodgers and Yankees are. The front offices all do their jobs equally well with those 4 teams, but 2 of them have a significant advantage when it comes to team building because there's no cap. It's a gigantic advantage that you simply can't pretend doesn't matter. David Kahn passing on Steph Curry and allowing the Warriors to build a dynasty around him is because David Kahn was awful at his job, not because he couldn't afford Curry. That's the difference. I want equal playing field where it comes down to an organization's ability to strategize, scout, and spend their money wisely, not just having 4 times as much money to spend.
  12. I mean the Bengals went from 4-11-1 2 years ago to the Super Bowl last year. That seems kind of fast for going from the bottom to the top.
  13. First off, the 1.4 billion value has nothing to do with cash flow and a team's, or company in general, ability to spend money each year. The 1.4 billion has no weight whatsoever in their payrolls year to year. Second, you appear to lack a little understanding of what Friedman is doing in LA. They have 2 long-term contracts on the books. Freeman and Betts. Taylor's deal actually gets cheaper over the next 4 years. They aren't the Angels. They aren't locking themselves into the big 10 year deals left and right like the Yankees and Angels did. They're doing things like the Bauer deal or just continuing to extend Kershaw and Turner on short term deals. They're eating 32 mil of Price right now and it doesn't seem to be slowing them down 1 bit. Why is putting caps and floors into MLB unlikely to result in the Dodgers not being able to have a payroll over 300 million? I mean if the cap is 300 million they can't have a payroll over that. Thus the situation is pretty clearly different. And, as I stated in my original post, I don't want parity in results, just equal opportunity. I don't care that the Patriots or Warriors have been dynasties in other leagues because they weren't dynasties because they had a distinct advantage. They just built a better team with the same resources as everyone else. That's what I want. I'm good with the Dodgers, Yankees, whoever being a dynasty if their people simply do their jobs better. Yes, the Twins are trying to do the same thing literally every other team is trying to do, including the Yankees and Dodgers. There's a reason the Yankees didn't trade any of their elite SS prospects. They know they need to build through the system. Same with the Dodgers. Every team is attempting to build a pipeline of prospects that can replace players looking for long term contracts. But some teams can do both. The Dodgers can give themselves a little more time to develop those prospects by continuing to extend their big money guys on high AAV deals for shorter periods of time. They aren't blindly throwing money around. Friedman has married the Rays and the Yankees and has the Dodgers set to rule baseball until he retires. They are losing players they want to sign to larger contracts to big spending teams. Yes. 100%. The Twins didn't say "hey, we can afford Berrios and everyone else we want, but we'd rather have SWR and Martin for the future in hopes that they turn out to be good." They said "we can't afford Berrios at the number he wants and still be able to afford the players needed around him to contend so we should get the best guys we can to hopefully help in the future." The Twins didn't trade Johan Santana because they preferred that mess of prospects to having him. They traded him cuz they couldn't afford him. They didn't let Hunter walk because they preferred playing younger guys, they let him walk because they couldn't afford him when the Angels paid him twice the guaranteed money they'd offered him.
  14. It's not about being able to sign an single player to 30 mil a year, it's about being able to sign 6 of them to 20+ a year with 4 more at or over 15 a year, and 2 more over 10 a year. That's what the Dodgers have this year. Suggesting any small or mid-market team should be out there willing and able to spend 35.3, 32, 27, 22.5, 21, 20, 17, 17, 16, 15, 13, and 10.3 for a total of 246.1 on 12 players is simply ignoring the reality of things. So, no, I don't buy that one could argue the ability to sign/retain whatever FA they want. Not even a little. The Pohlads are worth a little less than $4 billion, but to suggest they should be spending hundreds of millions more per season than they make on the Twins is awfully unreasonable to me. I'm no pocket protector, and think they could, and should, spend more than they do, but pretending that every team could, or should, spend the same amount when they have drastically, drastically, drastically different income streams is being unreasonable to me. My suggestion wasn't to simply give Tampa or Oakland an extra 50 mil and call it good. My suggestion is to put a cap and floor on the spending possible per team. That's drastically different than helping Tampa or Oakland spend 110 million a year when the Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees are still able to spend 3 times that amount.
  15. I want it so that every front office is starting from roughly the same place in terms of the ability to acquire, and retain, top talent if they run things well. Parity in results isn't my end game, just parity in opportunity. The Jets, Jags, Lions types of teams are bad because they've been poorly run for years. The Wolves are bad because they've been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to FO decisions. None of those teams are bad because they didn't have the resources to be consistently good. Now there are certainly teams that find ways to be relatively successful for long stretches with low payrolls (some say early 2000's Twins were successful, the Rays, A's, and Guardians/Guardians are teams that have done it, but with few championships to show). And there's certainly times where the big spenders struggle (Tigers recently, Dodgers were bad for a long time, Yankees haven't won a championship in so long their fans think they're Cubs fans in the world of struggles, Red Sox have been very hit or miss of late, and the Mets are the Mets until they aren't). But the Dodgers are now the class of the league and there's no sign that they won't be for the rest of Friedman's tenure there. They combined the creative genius of the Rays FO with some of the deepest pockets in the league. My concern is that another team like the Mets, Yankees, or Red Sox bring in an exec like Friedman and then you have 2 teams playing in a different league. If you load up all 4 of those teams with the 4 best execs in baseball and their payroll capabilities the league is toast. I want to see more revenue sharing with a floor and cap in place based on league revenues (not the hard numbers the owners were reportedly trying to put in place in CBA negotiations). Have a cap and floor that varies based on the previous season's revenue numbers and even the playing field. Let the well run teams pull away from the pack based on things that don't include their owners being willing/able to simply spend 3 times more than the competition.
  16. Why would we accept having less talent, and who has suggested that anyone accept that? Yes, gathering together the most talented group of baseball players in the league is the most difficult thing to do, but what does that have to do with Rocco and his job performance? If you accept that managers can't make bad baseball players win games against good baseball players why are you mad at Rocco if you also accept that he was handed bad baseball players? The only thing that can be done to escape mediocrity is to get better than mediocre baseball players. See, this is where I have to push back on "modern era" Twins talk. There is a link between talent and fundamentals. You can't be good at the fundamentals if you aren't talented. You and I couldn't go out there and perform any of the fundamentals you want, because you and I aren't talented enough. Now some of their bad fundamentals are just stupid plays, and that's hard to judge when it comes to a manager's role. There's only so much a manager can do when it comes to a player's mental capacity to "slow the game down" and make the right plays under stress. It's why players like Jeter are so famous for it. Now has Rocco maximized the fundamental abilities of his players? Maybe, maybe not, but it's hard to say. "The Plan" was new this year. They hadn't pulled successful pitchers so stubbornly earlier in starts prior to this season. And I don't know why they decided to stick to that basically all year when it clearly wasn't working. It's why I don't care if they're fired. But fans who suggest this is how Rocco, or this FO, has always done things are revising history. It's simply not true. But there are other examples of things that one could point to and suggest they were too slow to act. Again, that's why I'd be ok with them being replaced. Yes, if a less talented team is out there next year and they use the same strategies they'd likely lose even more games. But we don't know what the team will look like next year, and they've also showed an ability to try new ideas from season to season (like implementing this new, terrible pitching strategy this year) which is why I'm not totally pissed that they'll be back for another year. If I were the owner I think I'd find a new leadership team, but I also get why the Pohlads aren't. If they come into next season without a better team on paper than this year I'd fire them then since they're going to have lots of money to spend with some pretty solid, cheap young pieces in place already. If they start the season pulling this 5 inning start backed by 4 one inning relievers every game crap I'd fire them then. But the simple, but incredibly hard to execute, answer to the "what to do" question is get better players. The Twins were a team most everyone thought was talented enough to win 78-84 games this year. They were on pace to do that or slightly better and then the injury wheels fell completely off and the season totally fell apart. I get that they started hot, and that was exciting, but I don't think anyone realistically thought they were suddenly talented enough to win 100 games. I think most people thought they were playing over their talent level at the start and expected regression. They got it and the team was likely to end where we all expected them to record wise. The stubborn adherence to the pitching plan was frustrating as all get out to watch as we got late into the year, but this narrative that Rocco cost the team dozens of wins or whatever doesn't track. Either we were all wrong on how talented they were or it just wasn't that much of his fault.
  17. My follow up question would simply be, what seasons did the Twins have a lot of talent and significantly underperform? He's been here 4 years now. They made the playoffs and had .600+ winning percentages his first 2. You've agreed 2022 was a season that he wasn't given much talent. So that leaves just 2021. Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't be let go. Not saying he should be either. Just trying to follow the logic. Because a lot of it just sounds like "he doesn't do things the way I want so now that the team is bad I want him gone." That's not necessarily directed at you as your view, but what many of the arguments on these boards boil down to. Basically the team won in spite of him, and now lose because of him because some fans don't like certain strategies. They've also tried to say these short starts are a hardcore Rocco mainstay when 2022 is the first season it's been nearly this drastic. As proven by Berrios throwing 200 innings under Rocco. I'm just speaking about the general arguments made on these boards against him. Most are rants against modern baseball while the few others are mostly revisionist history (Twins had 9th best ERA in baseball in 2019 but people don't give Rocco credit for that and just point to the HRs as carrying him, for example). I didn't see his quote about the KC outfield (I've stopped watching the games), but different outfields are different sizes so without knowing exactly what he said or was trying to say there's certainly something to that. Like Colorado outfielders need to cover more ground (more space between an outfielder and the infield) than at Target Field.
  18. Thank you, I kept finding more and more reasons why you're wrong so had to keep adding things. And, again, the Twins top 5 were nearly always the same when they were healthy. Even right now, before the last 2 or 3 games the top 3 was always Arraez, Correa, Miranda. You. Are. Wrong. It's ok to just say it felt like the Twins changed their lineups a lot and you didn't like it. But you provided a team as being consistent when they simply aren't any more consistent than the Twins have been. It's totally fine to not like Rocco, and he gives many reasons to dislike him, but you're wrong on this. Nobody is saying use the same lineup 162 games, but 1 injury (Marte) has lead the Mets to use 13 different lineups in 13 games. But you don't think injuries are a reason for Rocco to change lineups. You've gone from "they need consistent lineups!" to "well the Mets keep 33% of their lineup the same." Yikes.
  19. Lindor has hit either 2nd or 3rd all year. Nimmo has hit 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 9th. McNeil has hit in literally every lineup spot this season. Alonso has hit 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Marte has hit 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9. I mean come on. Maybe you haven't watched quite as many Mets games as you think you have...
  20. Like this literally blows my mind. 13 different lineups in 13 games and you want to tell me they're consistent. Like you literally couldn't be more wrong about the last 2 weeks. When they're fighting for a division title, no less. Like they're doing everything they can to win as many games down the stretch as possible, they have an old school manager in Buck Showalter, and they still had 13 different lineups in 13 super important games. You're flat out, provably wrong.
  21. It doesn't show that about the Mets, actually. Maybe you're not reading the data correctly. It does show the Twins 1-4 are practically always the same and it has been that way almost all season. You can see why I'm confused here, right? When the team was healthy playing against right handed pitchers the top 5 was almost always some form of Arraez-Buxton-Correa-Polanco-Kepler. So, again, I'm just not seeing your argument play out in the reality of things. And, no the Mets 1-4 wasn't almost always the same as I already mention Jeff McNeil, who is listed in the 4 spot there, hit in 5(!) different lineup spots in just those 13 games. I mean you're provably wrong here, yet still trying to force this into your narrative. I provided you 13 Mets games. They used 13 different lineups in those games. They didn't use the same lineup twice at any point in those 13 games. There is no repeat lineup in 13 games and you're still trying to argue they're consistent. It blows my mind. Oh, and the Mets manager is Buck Showalter. I think most people would put him in the "old school" segment of managers. It's almost like this isn't really a Rocco problem, but it makes people feel better to blame him for the Twins just not being very talented right now.
  22. When it comes to just Rocco, I think the argument can be made that he wasn't given talented enough players to get much more out of them than this. The reason I think most of us didn't expect great things was because we didn't think the team was that talented. To then turn around and blame Rocco for not getting more out of a not very talented team doesn't totally compute. Further developing untalented players is an interesting manager grading point. I mean are there a lot of managers out there that have taken bad prospects throughout their minor league careers and turned them into highly successful major leaguers when they were forced into big league action? A lot of managers out there turning Dobnak and Smeltzer types into Maddux and Kofax? It's part of why I don't think managers have a huge effect on things. I think Rocco is just another manager. And the guy who replaces him will far more than likely be just another manager. And the guy who replaces him will also very likely be just another manager. I think there's a tendency to get too caught up on managers. There's very few great ones, and very few terrible ones. It's why we see managers go from "manager of the year" to managing a sub .500 team all the time. Dave Roberts manages pretty darn similarly to Rocco. Both heavily weigh analytics in their decisions. Is Roberts why the Dodgers win so many games? Or is he just another manager, but happens to have a roster full of all stars, MVPs, and Cy Young winners?
  23. @rwilfong86 Here's the Mets and Twins lineups for the last 2 weeks. The Mets have had the same hitters available during that time so that's why I chose that stretch. You named the Mets as a super consistent lineup that the Twins should emulate. I'm not seeing it. They have 7 guys who basically play everyday. 2 of them are always in the same spot in the order. McNeil has hit in 5 different lineup spots in that time period. The Twins have basically 9 guys who play almost every day. I'm not seeing your point come to life in the actual data here.
  24. That's all fine and well, but doesn't at all explain why you state that having injuries isn't an excuse for inconsistent lineups now for the Twins, but it is an excuse for the Yankees. You can't have it both ways. You've said the injuries aren't an excuse for Rocco and the lineup should be consistent everyday. Then you say the Yankees can't have the same lineup everyday because they have injuries. You can't have it both ways. Comparing the Twins to a fully healthy Dodgers lineup that features 8 current or former all stars but refusing to compare them to a similarly injured Yankee lineup is simply trying to force things into your narrative.
  25. Yeah, to me that just says "they're an exception because they don't fit my narrative. Sorry.
×
×
  • Create New...