chpettit19

They're not trading Meyer. Him and Rogers are their 1-2 punch for the next 5 or 6 years. If Sixto's shoulder won't be the same they'd trade him for Garver, but the Twins don't want him if he's damaged goods. Garver for Sixto would get a conversation going I'd think. I think the Marlins are trying to be the Indians/Brewers, though. I don't think they're all that interested in trading any MLB pitching. I think they want them all and want to build a dominant pitching staff internally and worry about the offense after.

Well then I'm glad you're not running the Twins.

There is a 0% chance the Marlins trade their 2020 #3 overall pick and their 2021 first round, HS SS prospect along with the main return for JT Realmuto for Jeffers, Larnach, and Duran. That's 2 elite arms who are 22 and 23 years old (and they expect to be in their rotation next year) and an 18 year old electric athlete at SS. Duran is the youngest Twin in that deal and he's older than every piece coming back. MLB.com has Watson ranked #27 overall amongst prospects, Max Meyer #30, and Sixto #41. I'd guess all 3 are in more top 50 lists than not. They're not giving up 3 top 50 global prospects for a league average catcher, a corner outfield bat, and a worse pitching prospect than they're giving up. Never happening.

I'd argue the opposite. The "need" to win the division adds far more excitement to the regular season than seeding would. If the Dodgers and Giants both know they're getting a full series whether they win the division or not they're not fighting til the last day of the regular season for wins. They pull off the gas and trust their talent in a series. I love the drama of the 1 game wild card. Makes every regular season game matter. 1 game divided them, 1 game kept Toronto and Seattle out completely. AL WC was a tie which means 1 game could've had NY at home. If you're playing 162 games you need all the systems you can to make each game matter. You want more fans to tune in? Create more drama. I think this is good for the game.

This will be an unproductive conversation if your belief is the game hasn't changed. The rules today are different than the rules 2 years ago, let alone 20 years or 100 years. The game is constantly changing. People cling to the phrase "old school" as if it actually means something specific. It doesn't. It means there was a period in time you preferred better than now, but La Russa's in game strategies changed a dozen times during his career. There's no "old school" way to do things. There's about 1000 "old school" ways to do things. You don't like analytics. That isn't new information around here. And I don't mind that you don't. I work in baseball analytics so I tend to lean that way in my assessments of things. To each their own. But the idea the game hasn't changed is ridiculous. But go research what La Russa started doing with his bullpens in the late 80s before you go too far down the road of the game never changing and being so against analytics as a whole. You just don't like the new analytics. Cuz La Russa changed how the game was played in 88 and used what analytics he had at his disposal then to do it. Define "proven winner year in and year out." Cuz La Russa hasn't been above .500 every year of his entire career or anything. I've already given you Rocco's data. He's won more than he's lost. He has 2 seasons of .600+ winning percentage already. La Russa has 6 for his entire 36 year hall of fame managing career. La Russa finished bellow .500 10 times (almost 1/3 of his managing seasons). You don't like how Rocco does things. That's fine. But beyond that you have no leg to stand on. Rocco has succeeded at winning major league baseball games as a major league manager. If that's the tool you want to use to measure the quality of managing then you should be supporting Rocco.

Agree with first 2 commenters. It's the timing that I don't get at all. Just feels like a completely unnecessary move to make right now. There are a ton of guys on the 40 man who the Twins have to have 0 plans to have there for the long-haul. Why not waive them right now and wait til other teams have their 40 mans more set and have harder decisions to make about if a post-surgery Colina is worth cutting somebody else for? Just seems like an unforced error here.

I don't know that I think trading away current MLB position players for current MLB pitchers gets the Twins any closer to competing in 2022. I don't see the depth others do at positions with players who could bring back the type of pitching people want. Luis Arraez is the only piece I see as being extra, but he's not the type of player who brings back the type of arms people are talking about. I don't see Garver as being expendable. All you're doing is creating another hole in another place. I think Garver is a top 3 bat for catchers in baseball, how do you plan to replace that? Jeffers and Rortvedt don't replace that. They simply don't. Garver is one of the team's 5 best hitters. How are you going to replace that? I think the lineup is thin the way it is. A Polanco injury next year and things get real bad real quick. If you want to talk about shipping out prospects for major league arms I'd listen to that, but I don't see the MLB for MLB trade situation helping the 2022 W/L record. Kepler's no star, but his glove and league average bat are still more than anything that would replace him. Trade him and Garver? They're not good enough to bring back a #1 pitcher, but probably could get a #2 so now you have #1 and #3 rotation spots open and RF and C are significantly worse instead of having #1,2,3 rotation spots open while your lineup is good enough to compete. I don't think filling the #2 spot in the rotation counterbalances having to replace 2 starting positions players. FA $, prospect trades, and prospect development are what I think the road to competition looks like. Unless they're blowing it up and reshuffling everything. In which case it'll be one wild offseason.

I'm actually not a particularly large fan of either of them, really. I think Rocco is servicable, but nothing great. I think La Russa has a job right now cuz he's best friends with an owner. My take is that the manager plays a very small role in the grand picture of season total wins and losses. There are very few organizations that would hire someone like La Russa right now. Maybe just the 1, really. The point isn't whether you or I would prefer old school or new school, the actual players in MLB, and most owners and FOs, prefer new school. Like my first post in this thread said, you aren't complaining about Rocco, you're complaining about the world of major league baseball. 90% of teams are doing things the exact same way as the Twins and Rocco. Gerrit Cole didn't complete 3 innings in Tuesday's game, and both Wainwright and Scherzer were real pissed about how early they were pulled last night. This is how baseball works now. You're more than welcome to not like it (I'm not totally on board with it), but it doesn't make Rocco a bad manager, it makes him a current manager. This is how the game is played now. And the point of the comment you responded to was that if win/loss records determines if a manager is good or not ("He is still managing, and winning") then you actually think Rocco is a good manager. He's won 54.7% of the games he's managed and won over 100 games 2 years ago while winning at a 100 win rate again last year. If you think La Russa having a career win percent of 53.7 automatically makes him good then you have to think Rocco winning at 54.7 makes him good. 54.7 is an 88 win season. That's the rate Rocco wins at. If La Russa winning 93 games this season in the worst division in baseball automatically makes him good then it's really hard to say that Rocco winning 100 games in a division with another playoff team doesn't make him good. All I'm asking for is that people use the same standards for both and quit pretending the last 2 years didn't happen.

If the changeup is for real now is there any chance the Twins kick around the idea of going Freddy Peralta on the bit and trying to move him back to being a starter? Relievers are way easier to find than starters and we know we can use roughly 64 starters for next year. I'd guess there's a roughly .0942348509% chance this happens, but I think it'd be worth a chat amongst the pitching coaches and higher ups. No idea what his stamina is like, but if I remember the reason he moved to the pen was the lack of a 3rd pitch to get lefties out. If he has that why not see if he can't get through the order twice?

If them winning the division this year is proof Tony L is still a great manager then the Twins winning the division the last 2 years is proof Rocco was a great manager. How do you feel about that? Oh, you think those teams won in spite of the horrible manager, but my point that the White Sox underperformed their talent levels this year is a bad one? Glad the rules apply to both Tony L and Rocco. If winning 93 games in a division with 4 teams under .500 is a fantastic season I have no idea what the Twins winning 100 games in 2019 was. What's better than fantastic? Stupendous? So Rocco lead the Twins to a stupendous season 2 years ago and won at the same rate last year. So back to back stupendous seasons for the Twins, but Rocco is trash. I got it. Rocco has a .547 winning percentage as a ML manager (La Russa, with a way bigger sample size, has a career .537 winning percentage for reference). The Socks won 57.4% of their games this year. You're arguing that the difference between 93 wins and 88 wins is 1 manager is AMAZINGLY FANTASTIC and the other will never be a MLB manager again. That's your argument right now. Players currently being managed by Tony La Russa have openly complained about him and how he manages the clubhouse. I am yet to see even 1 player complain about Rocco and how he manages the clubhouse (entirely possible I missed it, but quite positive I didn't miss any public fights between him and players like La Russa). That's why I continue to say it's complete nonsense for people outside the clubhouse to say he's not good at managing the people in the room. It's simply people not liking the way his personality comes across on TV. There are no clubhouse struggles and everyone who leaves praises Rocco and the Twins and how they do things, yet so many people want to stick with "Rocco has no idea how to lead athletes!" Mind blowing to me.

Jo Adel is a center field prospect just getting his first taste of the bigs for the Angels. Is it against their interest to have him develop into a starting center fielder? Does him becoming good enough to start in center field mean they are going to move on from Trout? Or does it mean they now have 2 CF quality defenders in their outfield and when Trout goes down (like he did this year) they have someone who can replace him? I think our disconnect is what is meant by "develop into a starting center fielder." I see a difference between being good enough to start in center field (what I would say "develop into a starting center fielder" means) and being the starting center fielder. The comment you originally responded to suggested trading Celestino for more pitching. You read that as they should get rid of Celestino and keep Buxton. I'd argue they should keep both. With Buxton's injury history having a 2nd starting quality center fielder is huge. I'd say they've failed mightily by having Jake Cave as that guy the last few years. It's never bad to have multiple players who can start up the middle. In fact it's how Tampa builds their entire system.

What moves ahead am I supposed to be thinking about? What moves am I supposed to be thinking about? Is this a chess game? Am I supposed to be thinking about how to checkmate you? I am so thoroughly confused right now. Is your point now that the Twins traded Pressly in 2018 so that they didn't have to re-sign Buxton in 2022? Yes, if Celestino is starting in 2023 (as the plan, not because of injury) then Buxton wasn't re-signed and I'll be pissed. That has literally nothing to do with judging the Pressly trade, though. Nothing at all. They traded current talent for the hope of future talent. They felt their window was closed in 2018 and they could win without Pressly in 2019, but would like more talent for 2020 and beyond. I'd argue they were pretty accurate with that assessment. Not mad at anyone, and don't think it's crazy, that would have preferred to have Pressly in 2019 to having Alacala and Celestino now. To each their own. But Buxton not being re-signed has nothing to do with the Pressly deal. Sorry for not being able to "think more than one move ahead" of your points that have nothing to do with the forum. I'll try to be better next time.

I don't think I'd consider 5 save opportunities before pulling him from closer duty to be outrageous. Colome blew 3 of his first 5 save opportunities and didn't get another one for 3 months. Doesn't seem to me like Rocco rode with Colome as a closer for very long.

I've been about as big of a supporter of this FO as you'll find on these boards, but this is an awful start to the offseason and I feel like I'm going to end up joining the ranks of the very upset fans by the end of the winter. I don't get this at all. They have SO MANY AAAA relievers on the 40 man and they waive the kid who throws 100 with a nasty slider? Don't see the reasoning at all. Feels like they're going to try to thread the needle and really contend in 2022 and end up losing a handful of young guys and tank the future along with the present. Not a fan of this move at all.

Sure, by 2023 if Celestino is a starting quality major league center fielder that'd be good. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. There is no situation that ever equals the trade having been Pressly for Alcala (like your previous post stated). It was Pressly for Celestino and Alcala. It was also never Pressly for Celestino (as this post would suggest with the statement about backup CFers being available for less than an All Star reliever). It was Pressly for Alcala and Celestino. That was the trade. You don't get to separate Alcala and Celestino. They were both part of the trade. Whatever they turn into (even if it's other players in a future trade) can be compared to the 1.5 years of Pressly the Twins traded away. That's how this works. You don't get to separate the return or add in the extension years for Pressly as those years weren't guaranteed when the deal was made. I'm thoroughly confused as to what your 2 posts are trying to get at.

I'll start with the fact that I think managers are incredibly overrated at this point in time. Knowing "the numbers," and being able to make sound decisions based on them, and managing egos/individual players are their real main jobs. Fans should not expect managers to make BP and infield practice mandatory for an entire season for an entire team. The manager's job is to know his players individually and adjust his interactions with, and expectations of, them accordingly. The mandatory "practice" thing happened because they were calling up a bunch of kids who didn't know how to be major leaguers yet. But they didn't make guys in their mid 30s who are established big leaguers (like JD) follow their mandatory things because those players already have their routines and habits and it'd be poor management to mess with that. That's why it's so hard to judge managers. Many people see them as being similar to the head coaches on their little league teams when the truth is that they're nothing like that. Team wide mandates for anything (beyond arrival times for flights and stuff) is not how you manage 21st century athletes. They'd rebel and you'd have a disaster. Dictating routines isn't ideal either. And it's much better when vets take the lead on that. Miguel Sano following Cruz around and learning what makes him great is much more productive than Rocco forcing him to take ground balls or BP. What then needs to happen is information on player habits needs to be funneled up to the FO where they can make decisions. Sano is just now talking about losing 30 pounds so he can perform to expectations? That's first and foremost a Sano problem. Then its manager and FO. Manager hasn't been able to find a way to get him that motivated yet and FO extended a guy who wasn't willing to do the work. Both failures. The truth is a season like this is a failure of the players, the FO, the manager, the scouts, the number crunchers, the owners, the coaches, and just about everybody else in the org. The FO missed on evaluations (scouts and number crunchers included), the manager and coaches didn't have them ready, the Pohlads are the Pohlads so they're always to blame, and the players didn't take it upon themselves to be prepared to do their jobs this year. From everything I hear players are more than happy with the Twins and how they do things. I've never heard anybody complain about Rocco. At the end of the day the players are the ones throwing, catching, hitting, and running. But you can't fire the whole roster (I think you can, but that's how the saying goes) so the manager takes heat. I'm not a huge Rocco guy, but I don't think he's as bad as people say. He manages the way the FO wants, and the way most managers do. AJ Hinch is a recent WS champ and won 47.5% of his games with the Tigers this year. How much do managers really matter? They're not like head coaches in the NBA and NFL in that they're designing plays and have a huge effect on the field. Most MLB strategy is decided with the FO well before the game ever starts.

That's fair. And even more evidence that managing in today's game is different than it was even 10 or 15 years ago. People calling for Rocco to be TK, LaRussa, Bobby Cox, etc. are asking for the wrong thing. It's not how things are done anymore,

It is good. I'd obviously prefer that result to the results we got from the Twins. But the suggestion that his angry old man managing style is the reason they got results seems far fetched to me. Does winning 93 games when playing 76 division games against under .500 teams seem like he was dragging them to greatness with his fire and brimstone? The other poster was suggesting that managers need to be emotional and angry like Tony L to succeed and I'd argue the White Sox underperformed their talent level. Would Rocco have won more than 93 games with them? Who knows. But suggesting that if Rocco was more Tony L this Twins season would've played out better is ridiculous to me.

Winning 93 games in the worst division in baseball with one of the most talented teams in the league is supposed to be impressive? There were 4 teams under .500 in the central and the great Tony L couldn't manage to win 100 games. I don't think he's a great example.

To be fair when the pressure was on Gardy teams in the early 2000s they choked too. This playoff losing streak didn't start under Rocco.

Many of the complaints about Rocco are really complaints about analytics and where the world of baseball is going. The Twins don't manage their pitching staff much differently than any other club. Jose Berrios wasn't 2nd in the AL in innings because he threw 9 innings every game for the Jays the last 2 months, Rocco let him throw when he was being successful. The Twins clearly had a plan to limit starter innings and rotate pen arms between AAA and the majors early in the season after coming off a 60 game season. These constant complaints about the Twins pulling starters early simply aren't based in reality and are getting really old. The Twins manage their starters the same way as basically everyone else. They just didn't have very good starters so they couldn't let them go as long. And if I'm remembering correctly Colome got 5 save opportunities early before being pulled from that role. Can we quit acting like Rocco had him out there for 15 blown saves or something crazy? Colome had a long track record of major league success coming into the season. 5 early high leverage situation chances is not unreasonable for a guy with his track record. And it's impossible for us to speak to what kind of leader he is. I haven't heard a single negative thing said about him from any current or former players (that played under him). We have no idea what goes on in the clubhouse. I agree that I prefer managers to have a little more fire than he does (it's uncomfortable watching him argue and try to get kicked out of a game, he can't even get riled up when he's trying to get booted), but to suggest he's failing at leading the clubhouse is 100% speculation with no way for any of us on here to really know.

Yes. In what world would it not be in their best interest to have Celestino develop into a starting center fielder? Having 2 starting CFers is better than having 1. Having 3 is better than having 2. It is always in a team, and their fan's, best interest to have more talent than less. Having Celestino traded for pitching doesn't make the trade Pressley for Alcala, it makes it Pressley for Alcala and Celestino who they then turned into more pitching. Google "Delmon Young trade tree" and see what a single trade can do for an organization. Unfortunately the Twins were the ones who got that tree growing for the Rays.

I didn't mean be an above average hitter for the league as a whole, I meant hit well enough to play as a glove only SS in the majors. Take Simmons for example. He can still field the position, but he can't even hit well enough to even be a glove first major league SS anymore. He barely hit enough when he was an all world glove at the position. The hitting standards for a glove first SS aren't terribly high, and I don't think the Twins have anyone who can even meet those standards while also fielding as well as you need to at that position to warrant a major league spot. The Miller kid they just drafted may fit the bill, but he's a fresh out of high school signing so he's not an answer anytime soon.

Will be interesting to see what TB does with their 3 games against NY. With the division locked up I'd assume they're more worried about setting up their pitching for round 1 than they are beating the Yankees. Without that they'd be facing the toughest last series, but TB being more focused on the playoffs may make that series closer to the difficulty of playing the Nats, Angels, or O's like the other 3. Or maybe TB really doesn't want to face NY in the playoffs and they come out and look to step on their throats and sweep them to give the other 3 good shots at both wild card spots. Big game for Toronto tonight.

But Cruz, Happ, and Robles were on expiring deals so what does that have to do with them rebuilding in 2022? Those guys weren't going to be here in 2022 anyways. Your original comment stated that the team is clearly rebuilding in 2022 or they wouldn't have traded Berrios. Trading the other 3 has nothing to do with them rebuilding in 2022. Even trading Pineda wouldn't have had anything to do with 2022 as he's on an expiring deal as well.