chpettit19

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.

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. ?‍♂️

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

@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.

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.

Yeah, to me that just says "they're an exception because they don't fit my narrative. Sorry.

Except the "Rocco/FO defenders" also predicted a rough season in 2022. Pretty much everyone did. Weird agrument here. "Hey, we all expected this to be a rough year, but those who don't like the FO and/or Rocco are clearly right even though they said the same thing as the people who aren't calling for firings." And I'm no longer a Rocco/FO defender. The lack of adaption with the pitching strategy as we got late into the year would've been enough for me to fire them if I were the team owner. But there weren't many people anywhere predicting great success for this team. So just about everyone was right there.

So, wait, you didn't include the Yankees in your post about consistent lineups because they have injuries, but the Twins having injuries isn't an excuse for Rocco. So it's an excuse for the Yankees, but not for Rocco? I fail to follow that logic.

That trio of pitchers made it to 3 world series ('95 W, '96 L, '99 L) in the 9 seasons they overlapped. Yeah, that's a pretty good percentage for getting there (and I'd obviously take that for the Twins), but that's 3 aces on one staff and that was good for 1 ring in 9 years. If that's your big selling point I'm even less impressed. If you go outside of just the years those 3 were there together the Braves World Series rings sky rocket to, oh wait, it's still just the 1 during that time frame. Not exactly screaming "you need tons of aces to win the world series!" there. What you suggest is the most dominant playoff starting staff "in the history of the game" got 1 World Series ring. 1. I literally gave you 8 years of data, not "an obscure series here or there." The "obscure series" was because you questioned my 8 years of data so I provided the actual game by game data for one of those series. Would you like me to do every year back to 2014 in game by game form even though I already gave you series by series data? Feels like you're just holding onto hope that there's something hidden in there that proves you're right that aces, or even ace performances which you've attempted to shift the goalposts to, are what's necessary to win the World Series. Of course your chances are better with aces. Who said they weren't? Your point was that you aren't going to or winning World Series without an ace. My point was that the ace isn't the important part, but a staff with 10 guys who can get playoff hitters out is the important part. The last 20 World Series champs have averaged the 9th best rotation ERA during the regular seasons of their championship years. That's not screaming "full of aces" to me. That means you have to be in the top 3rd of starting staffs in baseball. Not exactly elite. 2020 World Series starters stats: Glasnow 4.1 innings 6 earned Kershaw 6 innings 1 earned (his best postseason start ever probably) Snell 4.2 with 2 earned Bullpen game Buehler 6 with 1 earned (also meets your loose definition of an ace perfomance!) Morton 4.1 and 5 earned Urias 4.2 with 2 earned Yarbrough 3.1 2 earned to lead that half bullpen game the rays do Kershaw 5.2 with 2 earned (dang, back outside the "ace performance" metrics) Glasnow 5 innings 4 earned Snell 5.1 with 1 earned Bullpen game to finish the series cuz they only had 3 playoff worthy starters 2019 World Series starter stats: aka "the series of the ace" Scherzer 5 innings 2 earned Cole 7 innings 5 earned Strasburg 6 innings 2 earned Verlander 6 innings 4 earned Grienke 4.2 with 1 earned Sanchez 5.1 innings 4 earned Urquidy 5 innings 0 earned Corbin 6 innings 4 earned Cole 7 innings 1 earned (finally an "ace performance!") Ross 5 innings 4 earned Strasburg 8.1 innings with 2 earned runs (what I'd consider the first "ace performance" we've come across in the 3 series I've done) Verlander 5 innings 3 earned Strasburg 5 innings 2 earned Grienke 6.1 innings 2 earned So even the "series of the ace" with Scherzer, Cole, Verlander, Corbin, and Strasburg all involved we saw 2 "ace performances" out of 14 starts. So in 2021 we had 1 "ace performance" as defined by you. 2020 had 2. 2019 had 2. So 5 "ace performances" (even with just needing 6 innings to qualify) out of 28 starts. We'll round that up to 18% of World Series starts, including a series with 5 guys people would call aces, with "ace performances." I'm not impressed by the World Series ace work. There were as many "bullpen games" as there were "ace performances." That doesn't speak volumes to you? Now we're up to 3 "obscure series." Shall I keep going or can we agree it's not about having an ace it's about having a staff of 10 dudes who can get playoff hitters out, an offense that can hit playoff pitchers, and limited mistakes on the base paths and in the field? I'll stick with the Twins having 3 or 4 guys currently set to be on their 2023 roster who I'd trust to get playoff outs. We're really, really, really short on playoff arms. But I don't see a reason to believe they need an ace to have any chance to compete when aces simply don't do what you claim they do in the playoffs.

How many was he on pace for last year before being traded? Hint: 200. Yes, he only reached 192.1 in 2018. He was only up for part of 2017 and was on a pace that in a full season would've had him right around 190. So, yes, I'm technically wrong. He went from 185 (if you include his minor league innings) to 192.1 to 200 to covid year to 200 innings pace again. Are you suggesting that him being at 190+ innings a year instead of 200 is proof that I'm wrong in my suggestion that they were never limiting his innings? Seems a little funny that you're arguing over 1 out a start.

Again, are the guys they got in return under control for 2023?

Last year's WS starters by game (by the way, these things are easily googled): Game 1 Charlie Morton 2.1 innings 0 earned Framber Valdez 2 innings 5 earned Game 2 Max Fried 5 innings 6 earned Jose Urquidy 5 innings 2 earned Game 3 Luis Garcia 3.2 innings 1 earned (basically a bullpen game) Ian Anderson 5 innings 0 earned Game 4 Zack Grienke 4 innings 0 earned Kyle Wright (technically didn't start) 4.2 innings 1 earned, but also gave up the earned run for Dylan Lee Game 5 Framber Valdez 2.2 innings 5 earned Bullpen game because they didn't even have enough playoff quality starters to fill their rotation Game 6 Max Fried 6 innings 0 earned Luis Garcia 2.2 innings 3 earned (basically a bullpen game) Did guys have good outings throughout the playoffs? Of course they did! Did either of these teams have a stable of aces? No! Fried is the only one remotely close to a #1 starter and he had a game that he went 5 and gave up 6 earned runs. There was 1 "ace" start in that series. Even by what I'd consider to be a very loose definition of an ace. An ace doesn't give up 6 runs in 11 world series innings. Did the Braves win world series after world series with Glavine, Maddux, and Smoltz? Have the Dodgers been rattling off world series victories with Buehler and Kershaw? Or last year with Buehler and Scherzer? This notion that the postseason is won and lost by aces simply isn't true. If the answer is "yes, yank your guy after 6" then you're not talking about an ace. Period. End of story. Aces aren't pulled after 6. Championships are won by complete teams with complete staffs of 10 guys who can get top hitters out and complete lineups that also run the bases and field well. How many playoff wins did Johan Santana have? 1, is the correct answer there. Because it takes a complete team, and complete staff. If you're pulling your ace after 6 innings that means you're likely pulling your other guys after 5 which means you're basically the 2022 MN Twins. Oh, and Sonny Gray went out in what was essentially a playoff game on September 8th while the Twins fought to stay in contention and went 6 innings 1 earned in Yankee Stadium. Shoot, Louie Varland went 5.1 and only 2 earned.

I agree with the general idea of there being some real reason for hope moving forward. My hope is that the FO doesn't sit on their hands and not do something to significantly improve their chances for success. I think the young guys (Miranda, Lewis, Kirilloff, Larnach, Duran, Ryan, Winder, Ober, Arraez, Wallner, Jeffers, etc.) all have real potential to be solid to above average to stars in MLB. But very few of them have earned an unquestioned spot on the team, let alone a starting spot that shouldn't be looked at to be upgraded. Duran has earned a late inning role until he fails. Ryan has earned a rotation spot, but not unquestioned top 3 spot. Arraez has earned the leadoff spot in the lineup. Miranda has earned a starting cIF spot. Jeffers has earned a backup C spot. But to me that's it. 5 guys who should be penned into the opening day roster in various roles amongst the young guys. As you noted, the Twins should have real money to spend. If they're not going to bring in a Rodon type (and I don't expect them to) I actually hope they leave the rotation alone. No more Bundy or Archer types. Have to live or die with the young guns behind Gray, Mahle, and Maeda. Unless Mahle actually has some structural damage in his shoulder we haven't heard about. Then you need to sign a veteran #2 or 3 type (still no Bundy or Archer types, though!). So if they can leave the rotation alone they should poor money into the pen and lineup. No big, long-term relief pitcher deals, but a high AAV, short-term deal for a couple big time arms is more than doable with the money they have to spend. Build an on paper elite pen. As for the position players I'd do what I could to bring Correa back on a 7 year deal. That and the pen spending likely leaves very little for the rest of the roster, but I'd look to bring in more outfield depth. Primarily cOF as between Buxton's 70 games and a Gordon/Celestino platoon I think they can cover CF decently well. Although I'd like Celestino back in AAA to start next year. But, assuming they have money left after Correa and pen signings (in my hypothetical, perfect world, I don't need to hear how there's no chance they sign Correa) they shouldn't go into 2023 relying on full, healthy and productive years from Larnach, Kirilloff, or Kepler. They need a right handed cOF bat to pair with them anyways. Preferably not Garlick. But overall I think they're in the best spot they've been heading into an offseason in quite some time. Now just don't screw it up by planning for the best. Plan for the worst and get more talent than you think you need. And, for all that is good and holy in this world, get a new training staff and medical team! Or just change whatever is wrong with your health and conditioning strategy.

The Twins haven't been a good team in the last 2 years! I don't know how to make it more clear and concise. That's the entire point here. You're suggesting they should be acting like last year's World Series winner and one of the top 3 or 4 World Series favorites this year when they were 73-89 last year and on their way to another under .500 record this year. They aren't a good team! I don't understand what you're suggesting. The Twins haven't been a good team for 2 years now. The Yankees traded Chapman (the best closer in the game at the time). The Red Sox traded Mookie Betts. The Rays trade basically everybody. Those are some pretty solid teams from the last half decade plus. Context matters. Pretending a 73-89 team should be acting like a good team is ignoring all context. That's not "lawyering," it's being realistic. Putting your head in the sand and pretending you aren't a bad team is not how you become a good team, it's how you stay a bad team. Look at Colorado.

Are you suggesting Berrios knew the Twins were going to go from letting him throw 200 innings a year to not letting him do what they'd let him do his whole career this year and that's why he didn't want to sign here? I don't know if it was all about money, but I'd be willing to bet the Twins didn't tell him they were going to cut 50 innings off his season inning totals. Rumblings from Gray? You mean that Twitter clip where he complained about not going deeper in games? The one where when he was asked about it later he said he was mad at himself for not being better and not at the team? Look, I haven't enjoyed the pitching strategy this year, and think it played a huge role in ruining the season. But before this season they'd never done anything like this so the suggestion that this particular plan has played a role in FA pitchers not coming here is simply false. They've never done it before so how could it play a role in pitchers not coming here?

Again, I'm not talking about going into the 2021 season, I'm talking about the day they traded Berrios. I don't know how more plainly to state that. I mean I literally gave you their record on the day they traded him. At that point in the season did you think they should be acting as if they were going to win the 2021 World Series? Because that's the argument you're making when you compare that trade to not trading Judge this year. Did you notice that everyone the Twins traded for since 2021, outside of Fulmer, are also under control for 2023? Correa fell in their lap and allowed them to appease fans by spending to their budget, and gave them a season to sell him on the Twins organization and perhaps sign him long-term. They traded Rogers for a starter. Drastically underestimated the injury risk of that starter, but they were attempting to fill a bigger need by adding a guy who would throw 150+ innings for a guy who would throw half that. And they apparently think Pagan is actually good, which is clearly a miss on their part. Not finding any difficult questions to answer here.