chpettit19

Brutal to watch indeed. It's like watching a slow motion car crash. But the driver is crashing into their own garage. Backing up. And crashing into their living room. Then DSP gets out of the car and blames the on lookers for his house being wrecked.

The Dodgers aren't emphasizing short-side platoon bats or extreme injury risk pitchers (although Glasnow definitely fits that category). By definition short-side platoon bats are not as good as everyday bats. Going out of your way to collect that type of player is not "all other things being equal." And when you're paying those short side bats 4, 5, or 6+ million it's not about spending power. That is an internal strategy that is not strictly financially driven. Obviously spending gives you more avenues to success, but, again, the low revenue team that actually won built their team through everyday players and didn't trade them in fear of "losing them for nothing." The Royals had 6 guys get 550 PAs in 2015. The Twins had 1 last year (Correa). 3 in 2022. 1 in 2021. 3 in 2019. 2 in 2018. 4 in 2017. That's barely twice as many total in 5 more seasons. The Twins are making strategic decisions that are not tied strictly to spending power. You don't have to agree with the strategies I believe in. But it is not correct to just say it's only spending power. The Twins are making strategic decisions based on far more than spending power. And I disagree with some of them. This isn't me calling anyone incompetent or suggesting I know more than all of them like you find a need to claim anytime people disagree things. There are so many factors that go into building a WS title contender. And, yes, spending is absolutely one of them. But you also can't ignore the human nature side of these guys not wanting to lose their jobs. You don't often get fired when you win your division a lot for a lower spending team because you're often able to make your owner money doing that and most of those owners are just fine with that. But that desire to not get fired leads to many (most) people being more risk averse in order to maintain their team's "floor" at the cost of their "ceiling" because a sturdy floor keeps you in your job for a long time while missing your ceiling and crashing through the floor leads to you looking for a new job. So the "smarter" strategy for these guys is to maintain a floor and hope you can be the 1 team with that strategy to get hot in October/November and come away with a title. History says you're far more likely to just stick in your job for a decade+ while never actually winning a title, though. I don't blame them. I don't think they're incompetent. In fact I said from the beginning I think this particular FO is better than average and replacing them more likely leads to someone worse taking over than someone better. But that doesn't mean they're infallible and make all the right decisions and have all the right strategies.

I don't know how to really judge how underrated a guy is. The Twins in general are not big time national talking points. Ryan definitely gets some love from some of the national guys. But I don't know how to judge how underrated someone is. He's been playing really good baseball for a year plus now, though. Definitely needs to be in any discussion about the best hitting catcher in baseball. And when you're in that discussion an average glove is absolutely good enough.

I think the history of the sport says it's very unlikely teams run the way the Twins, and, really, every lower half payroll team, are will win a championship. Is it possible? Of course it is. But are they giving themselves the best chance? No. And history is screaming that at them. But that's not all on them. It's on a number of factors (including ownership and their priorities). Since none of the teams in your prized research have won championships outside of the KC team that ignored your advice and actually did things the way I suggest I'm going to go ahead and say the evidence isn't strong that any of these teams are doing things in a way that is likely to lead to a WS title. Since, you know, none of them have won one. We've taken over this thread and we need to stop now. If you'd like to continue this conversation we can do so through messages. I disagree with some of the FO's decisions. Does that mean I'm calling them incompetent? Not even a little. Does it mean they can literally never win a WS? Of course not. Does it mean I want them fired? Nope. Nuance is possible. Agreeing with some things while disagreeing with others is possible. Them doing better than most MLB FOs while not doing as well as others is possible.

They all use a different collection of strategies. I like how some of them do certain things and how others do different things. It is far too broad of a topic to just say "Team X is doing things the way I want." Some of them platoon more than I like, but develop their own pitching so don't have to trade for it. Some develop really well, but trade guys before I would in my hypothetical rule of their organization. Some switch their lineup around more than I would while managing their pitching staff in a way I like, but others run their lineup how I like while running a pitching staff the way I like. You're not going to get me to point to the As, Rays, or Guardians and say we should do things they way they do. I like the way the Rays and Guardians do certain things, but not others.

Yeah, we're not turning yet another thread into a conversation about your incomplete research. Which teams aren't as extreme in their platooning? 28 or 29 of them. Which teams don't bring in extreme injury risk pitchers on a regular basis? 29 of them. You want to clump every bottom half team into 1 strategy and talk about how they acquire talent and that's it. I get it. It's not happening. BTW...spending ability is 100% an "owner thing." We're also not turning yet another thread into a conversation about your firm. There are no rules in major league baseball stopping the Pohlads from spending some of their personal money on the Twins payroll no matter how good or bad of a business decision it would be. This isn't a thread about that, though, so I didn't mention it and I won't be allowing you to force your narrative down everyone's throat in another thread. That talk stops here. Teams follow all kinds of different strategies when it comes to how they build their teams and what sort of players they look for. I listed 6 strategies this front office deploys that I disagree with. Not all 15 bottom half revenue teams are deploying the same 6 strategies. That's your answer. I'm not going to go through how all 15 teams differ in all 6 of those strategies. That's a ridiculous request. Either discuss more broad strategies than just the player acquisition buckets you've created in your "research" or move on.

Trading for extreme injury risk pitchers because they'll be "cheaper." Extreme platooning. Prioritizing short side platoon bats over everyday players. Strict 50/50 catcher split when 1 catcher is clearly significantly better. Refusing to move on from veterans until August in the name of depth to not risk a bad young player being forced into that spot being held by a bad old player. Building a team that relies on full health so each piece can be perfectly fit into their specific role in order to succeed. None of those are spending capacity based, but yes, spending more does help. That's an owner thing, though, so not something I brought up. There's plenty of baseball strategy things that have nothing to do with spending that I disagree with, though.

I would put them in the general area of 8-14. I think they're above average, but far from the elite. I don't believe their strategies will lead to a World Series, but do believe they'll continue to fight for central titles. They make some good moves, they make some bad ones. If they're replaced I'd say it's more likely they're replaced with someone worse, but there is most definitely room to improve. People also need to understand the difference between disagreeing with the FO on certain moves and calling them incompetent. They decided signing Joey Gallo for 11 mil was smart. Some fans disagreed (full disclosure, I defended the move). Those fans could disagree with that move (and they were right while the FO was wrong) and not be calling the FO incompetent or be calling for them to be fired. Along those lines, here's a news flash for everyone: the FO themselves have these very same debates internally. They're debates with far more data, but they're the same general debates. Signing Santana didnt get 100% support, I promise you. There are decisions Falvey and Levine disagree on. Or Falvey and Rocco. Or any combination of the 3. Someone also pointed out that fans have everything they need to judge the FO. Success and failure. That's all any fan needs. The FO shouldn't be judged on anything else. Do they build winning teams or not?

No you didn't, but that's what the conversation between Chief and I was that you jumped into. If you didn't want a response about that you shouldn't have replied to a comment about it. You, again, jumped into a conversation about something else and forced it into the conversation you wanted to have. If they told everyone currently paying Comcast, DirecTV, etc. that they weren't signing with Bally's at the start of the offseason those paying for those services only, or in large part, because of Twins games would've had a chance to figure out what they wanted to do for this season. But those who have Comcast because of Twins games right now can't just get out of that contract now that the Twins are no longer on that service. It's a very different situation. Sure, they could now add another $80/month to their spending to get Fubo, but that seems a little unrealistic for a team to ask their fans. Or, if they'd gotten a streaming deal in place (like they sent Provus out to tell they were going to, but don't worry I won't question their competence there) where blackouts weren't a problem none of this would've mattered. The Twins have been losing viewership for years while they watched Ballys be available on fewer and fewer services. They didn't have a choice then because they were under contract. They had a choice this offseason and signed up for the same sinking ship. According to DSP they hope to be part of an MLB offered package next year. I hope that happens. They openly acknowledged that this deal was going to hurt their viewership this year. Because I don't assume incompetence even though you constantly say I do, I actually assume they were smart enough to know that Diamond and Comcast had their contract running out soon so they knew there was a chance even more of their fans would lose access. I would actually believe that MLB encouraged them to take this deal to help tank Bally's and hurt the bankruptcy proceedings by Diamond not being able to come to terms with Comcast if a reliable source said that was the back room dealings. I'd question the Twins being a pawn in MLB's scheme, but I'd accept it's what happened. I don't care what other responses you have. I know your stance is, and always will be, that the business men are smart and do no wrong. But businesses go down all the time. Businesses are incompetent all the time. The Twins complained about Bally's/Diamond, promised their customers no blackouts for 2024, and suggested they were going to cut payroll in part because of their TV deal that wasn't going to pay as much but would be better for reaching their fans. They ended back with the guys they said they didn't like, still have blackouts, and cut payroll anyways. I don't care what you want to call that, but they failed. DSP said they failed. I mean he added that they "aren't tone-deaf," but he acknowledged they failed at improving their situation. Use whatever term you want. It's not automatically the right outcome just because you want to defend the business men. We aren't going to agree on this so I'm done with this conversation.

My complaint is that the Twins are actively shrinking their fanbase. They cut payroll this offseason to "right-size" their business. If their fanbase goes down their revenue goes down and more "right-sizing" needs to happen which makes the team worse. And I like the team to be better, not worse. That's my complaint.

Oh, MLB (and the MLBPA even) definitely gets some blame in all of this. I don't know that I'd use the phrase "strong armed" here, but MLB obviously had input and made known their plans to the Twins. I don't know enough to know if MLB pushed the Twins to just not give up streaming rights, even for a year, or if they pushed the Twins into the 1 year deal or what plan they actually wanted to play out. Did MLB want the Twins to do the Diamondbacks approach but the Pohlads wanted money so they played the middle ground and didn't give up streaming rights but still got their money? I wouldn't blame MLB at all for that. I don't know enough to know how much blame to put on who. But MLB absolutely gets some blame. Just like the TV deal expiring after last year wasn't some surprise to the Twins, this entire situation hasn't been some unforeseen surprise for MLB. This technology switch has been coming for a long time. Many of us have been pointing out MLB's lack of desire, or inability, to adapt to the times for a long time. They all get the blame.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not cable cutters are hypocrites. Chief called us hypocrites for complaining about the cable model mess because we caused it. I pointed out that he was wrong and he called me defensive so I explained more how being a hypocrite works in this situation. We'd be hypocrites if we were complaining about cable dying while being the ones that are killing it. That isn't our complaint. Thus we aren't being hypocrites. So there's no problem with my argument. Chief incorrectly labeled us hypocrites. But I'll respond to your point even though it isn't actually towards the point I was making in my back and forth with Chief. What "other sources" is this product available on? Other cable/satellite offerings? What's the difference between having to switch (pay) for a different cable/satellite offering and having to pay for streaming? If you had Comcast and live in the Twins "local market" you don't have another source that's available to you unless you want to switch to another cable provider. I don't know how cable contracts work anymore, but maybe they aren't year long contracts like they used to be so switching is easy. But there are many, many locations where there is only 1 cable provider. Thus there really is no other source because you literally can't pay anyone else for cable/satellite at your house, and you can't use the streaming option because you live in the Twins market. I don't care who you blame. The Twins tied their product to a "torpedoed ship" as Chief so poetically stated. He then called those of us who torpedoed the ship hypocrites for complaining about the Twins being on that ship. That is a misuse of the word "hypocrite." We aren't complaining about the torpedoed ship sinking. We're complaining about the Twins (and apparently MLB) choosing to take another ride on the ship they knew was sinking. And then coming out and shrugging their shoulders like they had no idea this was a possibility and there's nothing they could've done about the continued shrinking of their TV reach.

They could've done the MLB.tv package like the Diamondbacks. It would've cost them money. But it was an option. I don't think there's any debating that. They had at least 2 options. They chose this one.

Then major league baseball is in serious trouble. Not just the Twins. The entire sport. If they can't grow their fanbase through streaming the sport is going to die with the older generations.

That's 100% the reason. Thus my complaint that they chose the singular payday over growing their fanbase.

I'm not getting defensive I'm pointing out that your claim of hypocrisy is wrong. Yes, that's precisely what would've happened. It's what's happening with all the streaming services out there now. My point is that that's not what I'm complaining about. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about the cable/satellite model dying when I've played an active role in killing it. But that's not my complaint. My complaint is the Twins choosing to continue on the dying model when they didn't have to. They were out of the cable/satellite game and chose to get back in. That's my complaint. That is not hypocritical of me. I pay for MLB.tv. If the Twins had chosen to go that route like other teams did I'd have paid for their package. This isn't me being hypocritical because what I'm "up in arms about" is their decision to knowingly choose the torpedoed ship. CDs are a torpedoed ship. I played a role in that by streaming music instead. It wouldn't be hypocritical of me to point out that it's a bad decision for an artist to only release their songs on CDs.

Totally fair. I just think it's another shortsighted decision by the Twins. Their problem is a shrinking fanbase. They rejected the idea of fully diving into the streaming world because of the 1 year payout. I don't get why you wouldn't at least dip your toe in here and at least start the process of expanding your fan base. It shouldn't be about what Ballys wanted, it should've been about what was best for the future of the Twins. And getting their product in front of more fans is the very clear and obvious answer to that question. I don't see it as letting Ballys get everything they wanted just to have it, I see it as the Twins actively shooting themselves in the other foot after having already shot their first foot by signing up anyways. Their complete and utter rejection of streaming is mind blowing to me.

What infrastructure is MLB missing? Legitimate question. I don't know enough about this to have any idea. But streaming MLB games isn't a new idea, MLB.tv launched in 2002. It's been over 20 years. How long does it take to get things figured out?

There are other MLB teams that have signed streaming rights deals with Ballys. What's the difference? I'm no lawyer so I don't know how this all works, but I'd think if other teams have packaged their streaming rights in their Ballys deal the Twins could've done it, too.

Us "cable cutters" didn't force the Twins to sign up for another year on the torpedoed ship. I don't see any hypocrisy in pointing out that the Twins chose to take a ride on a ship everyone knows is sinking because they cared more about a singular pay day than growing their fanbase.

Him still having a job is why I'll never buy the idea that the Twins are ever struggling financially. Ever.

Curious as to how that works. Will it matter who the other market's RSN deal is with? Ballys is going dark in all their markets on Comcast. I assume that would blackout everything on Comcast in all of their markets (about half the league if I remember correctly). I have no idea how the Extra Innings package works, but I'd think if Comcast isn't broadcasting any Ballys games in any of their markets it'll be hit or miss for finding the Twins on any package on Comcast, no?

Seems so obvious, yet the team, to this point at least, seems to be very confused with this idea. We'll see what they come up with next year. Hope this disaster is worth the 40 mil or whatever pocket change the Pohlads got for re-upping with Diamond despite this very well known problem they've had reaching their fans this way.

Unreal.

Definitely not suggesting he's doomed. Just saying this was the concern with him. I don't think him having to go back to AAA right now is a terrible thing. He wasn't lighting the world on fire with the Twins, but got his feet wet and will continue to work to improve. I like his style of play, it's a nice contrast to many others in the lineup. But he's got real work to do if he's going to be more than a utility guy. I think he has a major league career ahead of him. It just won't be what many of us hoped for if he can't put more fear into pitchers.