chpettit19

My point was simply that they weren't the only FO to view their prospects whichever way they viewed them. Now that doesn't absolve them of blame, but it does mean that they weren't doing something ridiculous. Either they thought their prospects were good and didn't trade them when they had offers (which means other teams viewed them as good as well) or they thought their prospects were bad and tried to trade them but couldn't (which means other teams thought they were bad as well, but you can't trade someone nobody wants). Your complaint was that they weren't able to see they had bad prospects that they should have traded. So they should have trade them to some other team that also didn't see they were bad prospects and the FO is stupid for holding the same opinion the rest of the league, or at least part of it, held. If your pitching prospects are thought of well enough that other teams are willing to give up something of value for them then it's reasonable that you also thought well of your prospects. There's nothing to "believe" in any of this. It's simply logic. I have no idea if they thought they were garbage or not, but the idea that they should have traded garbage prospects for ML value has no logic in it. That argument is that the Twins FO should be smarter than every other FO in baseball. So when other teams see value the Twins should be so much smarter they know there's no real value there. That's an unreasonable ask.

What if the FO saw they were trash and tried to trade them but other teams also saw they were trash so they couldn't trade them and they were forced to do what they could to improve them and then move on? Not saying the FO doesn't deserve some blame, but it takes 2 teams to complete a trade. If nobody wants your prospects you can't make them trade for them. And if other teams wanted to trade for them then the Twins FO wasn't the only one that didn't see they were trash.

There are more walls in LF than CF so if your goal is for him to avoid walls you should keep him in CF.

Well you edited your comment after I hit the quote button. But my stance is the same. The FO is happy with what Rocco is doing and they'd be doing basically the same thing. If your argument is simply that there being so many different options for decisions means there's a virtually guaranteed chance choices would be different then I guess this is just a waste of a conversation. Cuz that isn't the point. The point is whether the FO agrees with the general concepts in the way Rocco manages the team. And they do. Rocco manages how they want. That's the point.

I don't believe for a second that the FO would be making very many different in game decisions. Again, not huge Rocco fan, and the FO, and most of us, would have made some different decisions here and there throughout the year, but if you think the FO would have stopped putting Colome in games earlier I think you're very wrong. If you think they see his lineups and disagree with a majority of them and aren't sitting down with him and telling him to change them I think you're very wrong. The FO agrees with more of his moves than they disagree with. This is how they want the team to be run.

Agreed, that is amazing. And not good. I think where we differ is that you've taken 2021s failure and say it means they're an overall failure and should be fired. That's ignoring 2019 and 2020 when they did exactly what you're asking them to do. They missed this year. Missed badly. But outside of this year they've done what you've asked. That's why I made a post earlier in the thread about the "what have you done for me lately" attitude is getting out of control. No, they didn't take over a team filled with TD posters as players, but they also supplemented that core to the tune of back to back 60%+ win rates and top 10 pitching staffs. Now it fell apart. Firing them after this season seems like a decision made entirely from "what have you done for me lately." I get that the arms haven't arrived as quickly as you, or anybody, have wanted, but they have a whole host of them at AA and AAA now. It seems foolish to me to fire them before we actually get to see if these arms are for real. If they have built the pipeline and it's starting to produce now wouldn't it be a colossal mistake to fire them right before it starts to pay off?

Agreed that he doesn't ask for approval for the lineups he makes or in game decisions he makes, but he does things in the general way the FO wants him to. Even if they fire him they'll bring in another guy just like him. This is the way the FO wants the team to be run. The pulling pitchers early during the first couple months of the season was decided by Rocco and the FO before the season started. Those weren't typical in game decisions. That was the decision they made to be able to get through the extra 900 innings this year vs last year. I'm not a big Rocco fan, but the FO has a very large say in how the game is managed. Not day to day, or inning to inning, but they'll always bring in a guy who looks at the numbers and manages based on the percentages.

Eddie Rosario and his 85 wRC+ and 85 OPS+ leaving is what is destroying this unbeatable core? Agreed on May leaving. I didn't like that decision. Also agree the FO did not supplement well enough this offseason. That's really what I'm getting at. You're saying the window is closed because they had every one of their FA pitchers forget how to pitch this year and thus they need to be fired, but you're giving them no credit for supplementing the core in 2017, 2019, and 2020. Especially 2019 and 2020 when they won 60+% of their games and had team ERAs that ranked 9th and 4th in all of baseball. But now that the wheels completely fell off in a way drastically worse than anyone would have predicted they've been complete failures? The prospects need to start performing to end this year and during next year. I've said that. That's the real test of the FO. But what if 2 of their 10-12 arms that will debut in the next calendar year perform and become legit starters? You've fired the FO and now a new regime in place even though the pitching pipeline has started to show results.

That core was going to win no matter what? Like in 2021 when Buxton, Berrios, Sano, Kepler, and Polanco are/were all on the team? And in 2016 when they were all on the team? Your argument now becomes that this FO is so bad that they managed to lose with a core that had no chance of losing.

I know sports are very much a "what have you done for me lately" arena, but things are getting a little out of control I think. Falvey and Levine took over a team with a 36.4% win%. That's really bad. They have since gone on to build teams that have won 52.75% of their games. This season has been a complete disaster without a doubt (and they still have a better than .500 overall record as a FO!). But can we stop acting like they've done nothing successful in their 4 previous years? Yes, they hit a ton of HRs in 2019, why do they not get credit for building that team? And that team had the 9th best ERA in baseball. So do they not get credit for that? I'm not sold on this FO. I'm 50/50 on whether they can turn this around. I didn't like the Shoemaker signing, but nobody expected him to be the worst pitcher in baseball (not a difference maker, but not a season ruiner). I didn't mind Happ and liked Colome. Both of those guys had real track records of success and nobody expected them to completely forget how to pitch (regression, yes, DFA level production, no). That makes me question their, and the coaching staff's, approach to pitching adjustments. Are they too "one size fits all?" It's starting to feel like it. The prospect arms need to start showing up and showing they can man spots in the rotation and pen soon or it's time for Falvine to go.

Great nucleus? Yeah, nothing screams great nucleus like a 103 loss team. They were the envy of the league for sure. We'll agree to disagree.

Those 6 games don't count? Do I get to take away a random 6 game losing streak in the middle of the season? That makes no sense. The record is the record. And they were 3 games under .500. Really doing a disservice to the phrase "total system failure" if 3 games under .500 is being described that way. Disappointing? Sure, but total system failure is a crazy description for that team.

What are the 2 seasons? 2021 obviously, but 2017 was their first year in charge and went from a .364 win% to .525. Then back down to .481, but I don't think that's "total system failure." 2019 and 2020 were .623 and .600 win% seasons. They took over the "total system failure" team from 2016, they didn't oversee it.

Totally fair, not saying I disagree that people can be emotional about big changes in their lives, but you don't often see professional athletes choking up during their exit press conferences after being traded. Like none of the guys in any other trade this season seemed to be so moved despite also having spent entire careers with 1 org in some cases (Bryant and Baez in Chicago for example). I responded to someone saying he "couldn't wait to get out of here" and I find that far less likely than him being willing to stay, but having contract demands above what the Twins have offered to this point. If he couldn't wait to leave he'd have been happy about the trade, not sad. And I don't think the contract numbers speak to whether or not he wanted to be here. As a fan I find 5/110 reasonable for the Twins, but if I were Berrios I wouldn't sign that deal. 5/118 (Wheeler's deal) is the absolute bottom of my market if I'm Berrios. Not signing for 5/110 doesn't mean I don't want to play for the Twins, it means I don't want to sign a deal I perceive to be below the bottom of my market. Maybe he's looking for 5/125 and would've signed that but the Twins never offered it. Maybe it'd have taken 5/150. None of that means he doesn't want to be here or "can't wait to get out of here." Just means the Twins didn't meet his number and he wants to see what he can get on the market. My earlier response was to the idea that Buxton and Berrios "can't wait to get out of here" and many players around the league having the Twins on their no trade lists because nobody wants to come here. That's all I was disputing as I find that notion to be based simply on a fans emotional response to a bad season and not based in any sort of observable information (like Donaldson, Cruz twice, Rich Hill, Andrelton Simmons, etc signing here).

I wouldn't be looking to replace guys year over year. The pipeline has to produce arms that the Twins have for 6 years (we'll see what the new CBA has to say about that). I don't think there's much of a difference between the guys who demand 5 years and the guys you can get for 1 or 2. Especially this year when there's a whole bunch of veteran arms on the market. But there's certainly other ways to do things and getting the right guy on a 5 year deal would be a win. I just don't think long term FA pitching contracts work out well for teams with the Twins budget constraints (whether their self inflicted constraints or not).

I've still not said they shouldn't sign FA pitching. They should sign FA pitching. I've said they should sign FA pitching. What I've said is I don't want them signing guys on long term deals this offseason. I'd prefer a Verlander type for 2 high priced years than one of these guys on a 5 year deal. I'm not punting on 2022, let alone 2023. I think they can contend for the division next year if they hit on the pitching FAs this offseason. But I don't want high priced vets on long term deals since the real chance for the Twins to compete moving forward relies on the system producing viable MLB arms. I'm hedging my bet, per se. Because if none of the arms hit over the next 2 years they aren't going to compete for the division during those 2 years, even if they bring in 2 of these guys, and then they'll be heading into 2024 with 2 high priced arms on the decline surrounded by a 2021 style staff when I'd prefer to take my shot for the next 2 years with FA vets on 2 year deals and the system providing arms for depth. My proposal is giving this FO 2 seasons to show they can rebuild the staff to where it was in 2019 and 2020. They need to sign FAs this offseason to do that. I think they should spend 50-60M on arms this offseason. But on only 1 and 2 year deals. If they fail over the next 2 years it means they haven't produced a "pitching pipeline" and it's time for them to go. If that's the case then I don't want my new FO saddled with multiple big contract veteran arms. I want them to have a clean slate to keep whichever young guys are producing and build the team how they want. So, yes, sign FA arms to try to compete the next 2 years. I just wouldn't give any of the 5 guys listed here long term deals.

I'm saying if none of the prospect arms hit over the next 2 years the team will be bad no matter what free agents we sign. We can't afford to fill a rotation and pen on big name, or even medium name, FA signings. The Twins can only compete if they produce their own pitching. So if all the arms in AA and AAA now fail they're not going to be good in 2024 anyways so why have 2 high priced FA arms with nothing else around them, especially if it's 2 of the guys in this list who have never been consistent #1 guys and will be on their decline by then? My response there was in response to somebody else's response to me saying I wouldn't sign guys for longer than 2 years during this offseason. I at no time have said they shouldn't sign FA pitchers. I said I wouldn't give any of them deals longer than 2 years, because if the Twins haven't developed any of their own arms by then the team isn't winning and you're blowing it all up anyways. 2 years is when Donaldson's money comes off the books and it feels like a time to have all your money available and not have veterans on the decline gobbling up a large chunk of payroll on a bad team when you'd be firing the FO and starting over. And if the prospects do hit then you want your money in 2024 to be going to extending the core of this team and bringing in other FAs who are performing then, and not to any of these guys in their decline.

I didn't say anything about cost saving. The odds that any of the 5 guys listed in this article are a legitimate ace in 2 years are low as well. None of them are legitimate aces now, and only Thor has ever shown the ability to be one. They've all had nice years, even #1 years, but not ace years. (An ace and a #1 pitcher are different things to me. Berrios maxes out as a #1, not an ace, for example) SWR and Balazovic both profile as true #1 or 2s. My point is that if the Twins miss on all their arms in the system right now over the next 2 years they're not winning anything anyways. And if that's the case I'd much rather have $150M to spend in 2024 to completely rebuild this thing than $100M to spend and 2 of these guys in their 30s pitching as likely #3 pitchers by then and having no talent around them. The Twins need to produce their own pitching. Basically every team does. Even the Dodgers are relying on Buehler being super cheap right now. And Urias. And May. And Gray. Now some teams can take some big shots like the Nats did with Stras, Scherzer, and Corbin, and that certainly worked out for them as they got a ring out of it. But now they have Corbin making 23, 24, 35 over the next 3 years, Strasburg as the Buxton of pitchers, Juan Soto, and nothing else. The 5 guys listed in this article are all very good pitchers and I'd take any one of them on the Twins. But not for 5/125. Let's say we sign 2 of them for that. Now we have 2 of these guys, Maeda, and our slew of AAAA arms and prospects. With no bullpen. Or 1 of them and then we have that guy, Maeda, and our slew of AAAA arms and prospects with a pretty solid bullpen (assuming the rest of their FA money went to bullpen guys). The Twins pitching staff is too broken for signing 1 or 2 of these guys to make them a real contender over the next 2 years. The prospects have to work out. If they don't they're screwed anyways. So why have a guy making $25M in 3 years when the team around him will be garbage and he'll be on the decline?

No, I can't say I've ever cried in either of those situations. But that's not really the point. Why would you have been surprised? How many professional athletes have you seen moved to tears after being traded? I can think of 1. Wilmer Flores. I'm sure there are more, but it's certainly not the majority. I'm not saying it's impossible that Berrios was emotional even though he didn't want to be in MN and couldn't wait to get out of here, but that's a far less likely situation than him having actually enjoyed his time with the Twins. That's what I was responding to. The idea that Buxton and Berrios can't/couldn't wait to get out of here. You know what professional athletes, especially really good ones, do when they can't wait to get out of a place? They demand trades and say "I can't wait to get out of this place." I'm not following your last paragraph. What would most fans consider reasonable?

Astudillo and Simmons are the only guys left on the bench. Jeffers is 22 percentile sprint speed, Tortuga is 8, Simmons is 31. So Simmons is slightly faster than Jeffers, but still not sure he scores from first on a double and you'd have emptied your bench (Astudillo would then have to replace Simmons at catcher).

Is this sarcasm? If so, what move would you have preferred he make?

Your argument is that Berrios faked tears after getting traded? To what gain? Wanting to hit the market isn't saying "I hate playing for the Twins and they're a trash organization." It's saying "I want the right to choose where I play and maximize my earning potential as well." Buxton not signing isn't him saying "I hate playing for the Twins and they're a trash organization." It's saying "we haven't found a contract that works for both of us yet so I haven't signed." Which, in fact, is exactly what he said. Your argument is Berrios faked tears simply to make fans happy (apparently) and that both Berrios and Buxton are liars. Polanco is a high caliber player and he signed here. Does he not want to win and secretly hates it here and wants out, but isn't saying it? Donaldson is a former MVP and had multiple suitors, but chose the Twins. Does he not want to win and secretly hates it here and wants out, but isn't saying it? Nelson Cruz not only signed here once, but twice! Did he go into his late 30s saying he didn't want the chance to win a ring and would sign with the Twins knowing he had no chance of winning here? How about Rich Hill? Did he sign here last year with the intention of playing out his last year or 2 for teams with no chance to win? Why did MadBum sign with the DBacks? They're even worse than the Twins this year and he's a high caliber player who could've gone back to the Giants who are a top team this year. Eric Hosmer and Manny Machado signed with the Padres when they were terrible.

No trade lists are a thing, yes. Not sure where you're getting your info that Berrios and Buxton "can't wait to get out of here," though. Considering Berrios teared up when talking about leaving the Twins and both have said from day 1 they're more than willing to sign a long term deal here. There's a gigantic difference between wanting to test the market, not being willing to sign for less than what you feel your max market value is, not agreeing on a deal yet, and not wanting to play somewhere. Neither of them have ever said they don't want to play here or wouldn't be willing to resign here. Ever.

If I'm the Twins owner I'm asking my FO to sign people for no more than 2 years. For the Twins to be successful they need to develop their own pitching. Plain and simple. They can't afford top end FA arms on long term deals so are paying for their decline. Donaldson has 2 years left on his big deal. This offseason I'm pushing for the FO to sign pitchers to 1 or 2 year deals. If they can get a Scherzer/Verlander type for big money on a short deal I'm all for it. Not paying any of these guys on long term deals as I don't think any will be good enough for the 20M+ they likely demand. I say this is what I'd do as the Twins owner, because 2 years is all the more leash I'd give Falvine. They need to develop top end starters. They now have 10-12 guys who should be up next year and establishing themselves by 2023. If they haven't turned anyone into a #1-2 starter they're out. They were hired to develop a pitching pipeline and it's time to see it or find someone who can do it. So I want vets on big $, short term deals to front the rotation while the young guys get their chances. Then after 2023 if the pitching pipeline isn't flowing somebody else gets to come in and take over a roster with almost no guaranteed money and make their changes. I know many of you have no desire to see Falvine here for 2 more years, but their arms are set to start debuting this year and next. Doesn't make sense to me to fire them as their arms start showing up. They had top 10 staffs in 2019 and 2020 so I think they get the chance to see their prospects through. If they all flop, it's over, but if they show up and perform Falvine gets to stick around.

Culture, clubhouse bonding, whatever you want to call it is a weird thing. The players aren't all friends and buddies who hang out off the field. But you certainly don't want anyone who makes anyone not look forward to coming to the field everyday. The thing Cruz brought was an example on how to be a professional baseball player. Same with Donaldson. But Donaldson is a different personality and that's where you run into a question of how he gets along with teammates. It's impossible to say from the outside. Any of us liking, or not liking, his personality is in no way, shape, or form a clue as to how the people in that clubhouse like him. If there's only 1 guy who people don't like it's not a problem. That guy gets shunned to the corner and everyone else is fine. There can be a problem if that player is supposed to be your veteran leader, though. I like Donaldson and the fire he brings. I see it as an expectation of what professional athletes are supposed to do and perform. He expects to win and it shows. I like that, but not everyone does. In the long run, what you want is a clubhouse where everyone feels comfortable and gets along. Everyone enjoys coming to "work" each day. Same as any company. Then you need veterans who can show young guys how to be professional athletes and what that preparation looks like. Cruz and Donaldson were/are great examples for the young guys. Berrios is/was a great example for the pitchers. Success/winning makes up for a lot of the other stuff. If you're winning the small differences between players are forgotten and the team bonds. If you're losing all the time tempers flare and little things that wouldn't come up on a winning club become a problem. A team that gets along, pulls for each other, and believes in each other is important, but if losing 1 or 2 guys destroys that you didn't really have a good culture.