chpettit19

Which of those players won a World Series last year for those teams who "went for it?" We clearly have a difference of opinion on what "going for it" means. To each their own. Have a wonderful day and hopefully we can both enjoy some Twins Ws this year with far more in future seasons.

My rant was about specific posters on this site who have complained about a specific thing about Rocco then changed it today based on this particular game to then complain about the opposite of the specific thing they didn't like. Then I responded to your post about this particular game. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. You made a comment. I responded to it. I've also responded to comments on other threads today that have nothing at all to do with either game yesterday. I don't even know if your previous comment was directed towards me. I didn't take it as it being as you didn't quote me or anything. I was simply responding to a comment.

He pitched to 3 guys that inning. Threw 10 pitches. The decision was made before the inning that Berrios was going to win that game or lose that game. And I think he's earned that right. Especially in a lost season.

I'm using "fans" to avoid directing comments at specific individuals. Obviously not every fan has the same opinion. I am specifically calling out fans on this site who have made both of the arguments I have stated and are basically just on here every day complaining about whatever they find to complain about even if it directly contradicts what they were complaining about the day, week, or month before.

Of course he needs to be good at making those decisions. My point is that fans have gone from saying he has no feel for the game because he doesn't leave his pitchers in long enough to saying he has no feel for the game because he's leaving his pitchers in. It's simply complaining to complain. I know people have a need to vent, and it's hard to not complain during a season like this, but going from "he needs to keep pitchers in when they're going well" to "he needs to pull his pitcher sooner and take away the risk of him blowing up" gets pretty frustrating. Rocco has made plenty of decisions I don't understand and have questioned in the moment, but last night wasn't one of them. So if people want to question his "feel for the game" at least be consistent with it. I may have worded it wrong in my other post, but that's my point. He gets paid handsomely to make decisions and those of us who pay to view the product have every right to question those decisions. But it gets pretty annoying when the argument is "do what I want you to do until it goes poorly then you should've known better and just done what you used to do."

Trades for what? Proven MLB talent by giving up their own prospects? Or trades for their MLB talent that brought in prospects? I've never once said I want the Twins to build through draft and develop alone. I've said I want them to make smart trades that improve the present while keeping an eye to the future and have the core of their talent be promoted from the minors to ensure they have a steady flow of affordable talent that can be supplemented with veteran additions. That's exactly what the Rays do. Arozarena was aquired via trade. As a prospect. Meadows was aquired via trade. As a prospect. Glasnow was aquired via trade. As a prospect. The Rays literally just traded their best pitcher to bring in younger, more controllable pitchers after a run to the World Series because it improved their organization. Now I'm suggesting the Twins trade their best pitcher during a 100 loss season to improve their organization. I don't get what you're suggesting with this at all.

"Rocco is the worst! Always pulls Berrios and the rest of the starters way too early to put in this garbage bullpen!" Rocco leaves starter in for the 7th. Starter loses game. "Rocco is the worst! Why doesn't he pull his starter and put in the pen guys?!" Just one of those seasons. I'm not a huge Rocco fan by any means, but this damned if he does damned if he doesn't stuff is getting ridiculous. Tough loss. I know it comes in the middle of a brutal season, but you can't have it both ways. Either you want the starters to have the chance to work through things when they're going well in a game (Berrios had given up 2 hits through 6! and didn't hit 100 pitches for the game) or you want them pulled at the first sign of trouble like Rocco used to do. And don't give me the "he needs a better feel for the game" garbage right now either. Things didn't go well in the 7th, but this is what people have been begging for all year. He's letting his starters go when they're doing well. Pretty disingenuous to spin it and then yell at him for doing exactly what you've asked for. Rocco said "this is your game Jose, go win it" and Jose didn't get the job done. It happens.

Should absolutely start with a sky high price. The question really is whether or not they're willing to come down at all from that ask or if that's truly what it would take to get a deal done. Can't imagine any team is doing that deal for Berrios. How many teams even have those assets? There's also reports out there that the Dodgers are going to bring in a starter and are relatively desperate to do it. They've got a couple big time arms in the minors. Sounds like their top arm (Gray) is getting the call up (starting today?) so I'm sure he's off the table, but they have 2 other guys (Miller and Pepiot) who are well thought of. Could the Twins start with an ask of both of them and a young MLB pen arm and see where it goes? Hopefully end up with the pen arm, one of those guys, and a top 10-15 system middle infielder?

I'm not saying anyone is untradeable. I'd trade Mike Trout if the return made my organization better. Jorgenswest did quite a good job of laying out my view on things. The FO hasn't just sat around calling up prospects and crossing their fingers. They've filled in with veterans on short term deals to bridge to their prospects. They kept Kirilloff at the alternate site longer than they had to because they were listening to you and "going for it" with the veterans last year. Until injuries crushed them late. They traded one of their top prospects for a veteran starter. They spent big on a former MVP to give the offense a boost. They signed experienced veteran pitchers with playoff experience to carry the pitching staff. And they got a top 5 staff out of it. Then they lost in the playoffs anyways. Small sample size and I don't care about it (obviously want them to win in the playoffs, but, beyond being embarrassing, the playoff streak isn't meaningful to me). They should always make smart moves that improve their present while keeping an eye on the future to avoid extended years of seasons like this. I think they've done well at that. This year was a disaster. It doesn't outweigh the previous 4 where they improved the team ERA every year, including top 10 staffs the last 2 years, set HR records, and won division titles twice. Holding onto Berrios, Buxton, and/or Rogers and trading young MLers and/or MLB ready prospects for a 1 year shot doesn't make sense to me. If a team makes a really good offer for any of those they should absolutely listen and pull the trigger if it improves the organization. They should also have a plan on how to replace them for next season. Maybe that includes a piece coming back in the trade, maybe it's a list of realistic FA signings. They've made additions to the pitching staff each year and I don't know why they couldn't do it again next year, even without Berrios and/or Rogers. To me it's more about your definition of "going for it." Some fans (sounds like you fit in this category) would be happy with them going all out for 1 year even though the odds are far greater they still don't win and then get years of 100 loss baseball (Pirates style). Some fans (I'm in this category) want them to build through the minors while not being afraid to trade prospects in smart deals, but never raise the risk level of multiple 100 loss seasons to an extreme level (Rays style). Some fans can just never be convinced the team "went for it" if they didn't succeed. The Twins went for it last year with some risky moves (Donaldson signing, Maeda trade), but didn't mortgage the future. I far prefer measured risk like that as winning a World Series isn't about "winning the offseason" or having the best team on paper. Just ask the Dodgers. And the Padres (they "go for it" every couple years and still haven't been close). You mention odds and guarantees in a few posts, but only that the odds aren't great for prospects (they aren't, but they change when you're talking about the top prospects) and trading our "big 3" doesn't guarantee a new window in 23/24. But you ignore that keeping them doesn't guarantee anything in 22 or that the odds of winning the World Series in any given year (not even taking into account it being a season after losing 100 games) are brutal as well. The odds are never in your favor in baseball. That's why I'll take the balanced, moderate risk approach to the "all in for 1 year" approach every time.

Are you suggesting Tom Kelly was setting prospect development plans for the Twins? Cuz I think you're wrong. Did he coach prospects at spring training? Absolutely. Was it his job to ensure prospects showed up to the majors knowing how to play the wall (that was the suggestion I was replying to)? Absolutely not.

Agreed. His BB% would likely go up as he advances and hitters have control of the zone while his K% will go down as they are better at hitting the balls in the zone they're sitting on. Lack of command is the reason tons and tons of guys wash out every year despite throwing incredibly hard with filthy off speed pitches. They can dominate the lower levels where hitters are young and inexperienced, but they get to the advanced hitters and suddenly stuff isn't enough and you have to be able to throw strikes much more (and better strikes).

Not every fan would take those moves and be good with them under the storyline of "we went for it." I wouldn't be good with that. Not because I'm against trading prospects, or trading from the offense to improve the pitching, but because I don't think those moves get them that much closer to a WS next year and put them in an even worse position moving forward. In your suggestion it sounds like you're basically saying go all out for 2022, if it doesn't work blow it up and start a total rebuild (that's what I get from the "would have a crap ton to trade" part). I have no desire to see another 5 years of 100 loss baseball. That would be far more upsetting to me than trading any, or all, of the Buxton/Rogers/Berrios trio. Trading anyone who doesn't have a contract beyond 2022 doesn't guarantee a new window in 23/24, but trading a current MLB 3 hole hitter with 6 years of control, a top 25 global prospect, and an MLB ready prospect doesn't guarantee a competitive team in 2022. There are no guarantees. It's all about calculated risks and balancing the present with the future. There's too many other variables (who's playing SS? LF? filling out the pen? etc.) for me to really speak on your proposal, but it feels far more like a Pit trading for Archer situation than something that pushes the Twins from 100 loses to WS contender.

Oh, I wasn't advocating for bringing Simmons back necessarily, I was just responding to the idea that they shouldn't trade Simmons. The other poster sees Simmons as an answer for next year so doesn't want him traded (prefers they extend him) and I was just saying they could both trade him and have him for next year. As far as aiming higher in the FA class, that's the route I would like them to take, but with some caveats. I'd love Story, Seager, or Correa, but the financial resources likely needed to bring them in hamper the ability to upgrade areas I see as more of a need. I think a Baez signing could be a nice middle ground. Upgrade on Simmons, but not as expensive as the the tippy top of the SS class. The Twins need to devote more resources to pitching than position players this offseason I think. And obviously many other variables that go into this (extend Berrios, Buxton, Rogers? Trade one of more of them?). But my post wasn't me advocating for Simmons being the SS next year as much as it was saying him being here next year shouldn't stop them from trading him this year.

Not sure why that would be Rocco's job. I can't imagine any MLB managers have a great deal of say in the development practices of their organization. Generally speaking managers who are hired are people the front office and owner feel match their approaches to the game. You don't hire an MLB manager and ask them to setup development plans for minor leaguers. They quite literally have other employees who's entire job is to create, and ensure execution of, those plans. And Rocco's job during a game is to be ready for numerous possibilities at all times. He should be staring at his binder (one that literally every major league manager has, by the way) far more often than stepping in on conversations between players in the dugout. The only reason anyone is talking about this at all is because of the on the field portion. If Donaldson and Arraez don't have a back and forth on the field nobody even mentions the conversation they had in the dugout. That happens at least 100 times a season. No manager should be worrying themselves with intervening on every disagreement in the dugout. Coaches and teammates need to handle that.

Why not trade Simmons in the next couple weeks and then just sign him again during the offseason? I can't imagine they're extending him before the end of the season and I can't imagine the team that deals for him is locking him up either. Beyond Buxton and Berrios I can't imagine there's any player on this roster the Twins would look to extend before the end of the year. So why not trade anyone on an expiring deal and attempt to resign them if they really want them back here?

I think the characterizations of Arraez as "lollygagging" or just looking out to CF aren't totally accurate. Arraez looks to be checking the positioning of the outfielders. That's part of the game and something he should certainly do before each pitch to help him get the best jump he can on a ball in play. He was clearly late turning around, though. And I don't blame Donaldson for calling time there, or being upset, as he clearly sees Arraez turned around and his mind is there and not focusing on the pitch that would've been coming. I think it's a 1 off situation of Arraez being delayed (he would've been at the same lead distance on the pitch as he hurried his hop out once he saw the pitcher ready to throw), but not a big deal. This disaster of a season could certainly be leading to some escalated emotions (Arraez and Donaldson both seem to be very passionate players) which causes a situation like this to be bigger than needed. Especially in an embarrassing series like the one in Detroit. As for Rocco's role in it, I think it's much ado about nothing that he wasn't involved in the dugout. Nobody was throwing fists and they didn't even seem to be yelling all that loudly or anything. It's not like they had to be separated or anything. Seems reasonable enough to let it play out and have Rocco concentrate on the game itself. If it's a big enough deal he can sit down with them in his office after the game and figure things out. This feels like lost season drama caused by raised emotions from 2 competitors.

Well the report provides almost no information on the Twins offer beyond it being higher than 70 mil. So hard to say whether it's a reasonable deal or not. Also super hard to judge what his market value is. Is he one of the top players in baseball skill wise? Yes. Has he played 100 games in more than 1 season? No. It may certainly be a "we tried" piece. My point is that you seem to be saying the Twins won't get anything good in return because the league knows they won't keep him. Him being on the block (the Twins willing to talk to the teams about trading him) already tells those teams they're not planning on keeping him. The reason a team trades for him is so they can extend him before he hits the market. You risk giving up a top 15 guy so you don't risk him choosing to sign with someone or having that team run up the financial commitment. The Red Sox made it known Betts wasn't going to be extended and he was available for trade to the highest bidder. The Indians made it known Lindor wasn't going to be extended and he was available for trade to the highest bidder. Both those guys were traded for big returns and also got paid huge extensions immediately. Buxton is a vastly more difficult case due to his injury history, but the narrative that the Twins making it known he'll be traded if they can't sign him is killing his value on the trade market just doesn't seem to have any basis in reality based on the last 2 seasons where the exact same thing happened with 2 other players of his skill level.

You can play whatever semantic games you want, but the point is the same. The Twins need to know if they can extend Buxton. If they can't they need to trade him. That is news to 0 MLB teams. 0. None. Nada. Zilch. The other teams may have hoped the Twins would be dumb enough to let him walk for nothing, but they certainly aren't surprised by the fact the Twins are going to trade him if they can't extend him. Lindor and Betts had literally the exact same situation happen the last 2 years. Literally the exact same thing. Public acknowledgment that if the player and team couldn't find an extension the team would trade the player.

How is it bait? You blatantly misrepresented what the Rosenthal piece said. The article says they're trying to extend him, but if they can't they will trade him before the deadline or in the offseason. I personally have made at least a dozen posts on this very site saying that exact thing. For both him and Berrios. It's the logical thing to do. I think its Major League Ready who has been making many similar statements and referring to the Rays as an example (could be someone else, but I think it's them).

I read the article where Rosenthal mentions trading him by the deadline or during the offseason. Is that the one you're referring to and misquoting?

Is that new information? Are there any teams out there that aren't trying to "win" the trades they make? Is it new information that the Twins are better off trading Buxton before next year if they can't extend him? This is all common knowledge that has been discussed by random people on Twinsdaily.com for months. If there are 2 teams interested in him you can use them to push the package higher and higher. So I stick with you're contradicting yourself. If there's multiple teams willing to pay him big money there's multiple teams willing to trade for him. Red Sox traded Mookie before he left for nothing and he still got paid. Same with Lindor. Those teams willing to spend big on him would love to get him in their organization before he's a free agent to sign him before he hits the market. As long as there's more than 1 team interested in him they can drive the price up. Doesn't mean it'll be something crazy or the FO won't screw it up, but your argument that suddenly teams know the Twins are open to trading Buxton and now the team is screwed makes no sense. You think the team would be saying "no, we're not trading him" and other teams would suddenly throw their top 5 prospects at them out of nowhere?

They announced to the world they're trying to sign him and if they can't they're going to trade him. Is that earth shattering news? Is that not what dozens of us have been saying on these boards for over a month? You act like it's some big shocking news. If other teams didn't know the Twins were going to trade Buxton if they couldn't sign him I'd like to know which teams those are so I can send in a resume.

Well you're contradicting yourself a little here. If he's worth 100+ "for almost certain" then he's worth a pretty big prospect haul, too. Either he's wanted by the other teams or he isn't.

7/70 for him, even assuming 80ish games played a season, is most definitely worth it. You'd hope he's healthy at the end of the year for the playoffs, but in terms of the value he brings to even 80 games he's definitely worth 10m a year. My question is have people seen any report that says it's actually a 7/70 base deal? The Athletic report just says it's more than Hicks' deal. I haven't seen anything that even mentions the number of years this extension is. Is it 4/70? 5/70? 7/70? 10/70? The differences in those deals would be huge for both the team and Buck and the likelihood a deal can be made. 4/70 plus escalators is something I think Buck would be interested in. I don't know why he'd sign 7/70 unless the escalators at least double the deal if he stays healthy. 1 healthy season gets him a monster AAV deal even if it's on a short term. He comes out and plays 140 games at anywhere near the player he's been when healthy the last 2 seasons and a big market team will throw a Bauer deal at him without a doubt.

Sounds like the Twins are approaching things in a way that makes sense. Try to extend him and if you can't trade him so you don't lose him for just a comp pick. Lot more details needed to be able to know how reasonable the contract is from a Twins and Buxton point of view. I like the idea of escalators based on games played, MVPS, whatever that give the contract the chance to get real big, but I haven't seen any details on what the deal really looks like in terms of length or anything. Only things I've seen is it's more than the 70m the Yankees gave Hicks. That's not great detail. Is it also a 7 year deal? 5 years? 10 with a bunch of opt outs or options? Love that they're trying to extend him and give themselves time to trade him if a deal can't be done, but interested to see what they're really offering him. Next up...Berrios.