chpettit19

Feels like you're telling me my own life story!

Bobby Bonilla is still getting paid now despite not having played an MLB game since 2001. Deferred money isn't some magic idea somebody just thought up. It's been happening for decades. Ohtani's deal just has much bigger numbers involved. You don't think anybody in the Jags organization was paying attention to their finances and should've noticed 22 million going missing? It happens. All the time. And everyone in that org, I assume, speaks english and didn't need somebody to talk to the bank for them.

I will also note that Amit Patel was just sentenced to 6.5 years in federal prison for embezzling over 22 million from the Jacksonville Jaguars over the course of 3+ years. These things do happen. I have no idea what the truth is with Ohtani and Ippei, but the idea that it isn't realistic is probably based more on our "everyday Joe" lifestyles and experiences. It's crazy to me that this kind of stuff can happen, but it happens all the time. Smart but shady people get access to large sums of money and can make some of it disappear for quite a while without anybody noticing.

The language barrier adds another dimension to this all, too. I have no idea what the truth is, but Ohtani had to rely on Ippei for far more than the average rich person has to rely on someone.

80th percentile, 27.9 f/s.

It's possible there's some noise in his sprint speed numbers because of this at such an early point of the season, but not super likely. Statcast does take out the slowest of their runs (25% or 33% or something around there, but I don't remember exactly what that equation is). They use the top speed during the fastest 1 second window on plays where they go two bases or more and on plays where they've hit the ball weakly and are sprinting home to first. If he's not trying on even weakly hit balls that's a major problem, but I think that'd be something the clubhouse would deal with very quickly. They aren't counting his speed on routine grounders. Julien currently has 11 "competitive runs" so it's definitely a very small sample size. But concerning still.

Glasnow likely not a great option for fixing the Twins K problems...

Wallner and Julien both currently getting master classes in "the league will adjust to you and you need to adjust back or you're going back to AAA." They both seem like very smart hitters who put in a ton of work to fill holes in their games so I'm sure they're both working on adjustments as we speak. But MLB pitchers are really, really good. If you have a hole they will attack it over and over until you fill it.

Anybody know the story behind Martin wearing #82? It's not spring training anymore. He didn't want a more typical MLB number?

That is good news! I know he threw a pen the other day but hadn't heard an update.

Royce? I think they'd probably be hoping Thielbar, Staumont, or Weiss are ready to come back sooner than later and not have to make a 60-day or DFA decision, but I'm not sure exactly where those 3 stand. I know they were hoping Thielbar could start a rehab assignment soon. Maybe they carry SWR for a week as a long-relief option while they get Thielbar ready if Alcala is IL'd?

And Brent Headrick hitting the IL in St Paul. I believe that makes SWR the only healthy pitcher on the 40-man who isn't in the majors right now. Be interesting to see what they do if Alcala hits the IL.

If you're paying $1/month for The Athletic it's because you're on a special introductory rate. That is not the cost of a regular Athletic subscription.

The Twins are 7th in baseball in BB% right now. They are striking out too much still, and their BAwRISP is horrible, but they do take walks.

Wait a second, you've been going on and on about your research that isn't even complete?! Your data means nothing if you've only done 3 teams, and only done certain seasons. I thought you'd done every team and every season and drawn conclusions from an actual data set. Until you provide data on every team none of this means anything. The very simple reason why it doesn't matter is because if all the other teams, even the bad ones, have the same WAR distribution it's not about your strategy being effective, it's about the ability to identify, develop, and maximize potential/talent. Man. This has been a lot of virtual ink wasted over an incomplete project that doesn't actually present any actionable facts.

Riverbrian summed it up nicely. I absolutely never suggested a particualr strategy for building a dominant team, I just stated my opinion about the 2024 Twins trading Polanco for a broken starter, a volatile reliever, and 2 A ball players. I actually continually repeated that all I was doing was talking about the 2024 Twins trading Polanco and how I thought that was a bad move for maximizing the talent of the 2024 Twins. Then I pointed out that if you aren't going to insist on them following your strategy at all times it's incredibly hypocritical of you to jump on here and attack others for also not following your strategy at all times. We were talking about 1 trade (the Polanco/DeSclafani trade) and you demanded (yes, demanded) that everyone acknowledge your research and that following it was the smart thing to do. You don't believe the strategy needs to be followed at all times so it is nothing but hypocrisy to come on here and demand that the rest of us follow it at all times and not let us decide when it's ok to not follow it the same way you decide it's ok to not follow it sometimes. Feels like a good place to end this.

That makes sense on the Maeda/Graterol trade. If what smart teams do is trade veterans for prospects before they leave for nothing, then, yes, they should've traded him in 2023. There's nothing in your strategy that says "if you've only had them for 1 year then it's not smart to trade them." If you're going to pick and choose who it's ok to lose for nothing then don't attack others for picking and choosing who they feel it's ok to not trade. Especially since Polanco has another year of control left and they weren't going to lose him after this year. The Twins started Ober in AAA last year so wouldn't that be a position of depth considering you've been pushing Lee as part of the depth and reasoning why it's smart to trade Polanco? Ober was far more established going into 2023 than Lee is. And before you say "well pitchers get hurt so you obviously needed Ober there" I'm going to go ahead and just point you towards Royce Lewis as the clear and obvious rebuttal. And follow that up with a "look at Alex Kirilloff's history and tell me he doesn't need extra depth that Polanco could help provide." Maeda was not hurt all of 2023. Could've traded him at the deadline for prospects like you claim smart teams need to do. And, again, Louis Varland was in AAA starting so where's the difference between that situation and Lee? Now I'm at Ober and Varland as AAA depth for last year. Not sure how that's significantly different than Lee being AAA depth this year. Other than it doesn't fit your narrative. Just because those were the only pitchers traded doesn't mean they were the only ones available. There's still rumors that the Marlins are open to moving Luzardo (Padres apparently the most likely destination now), and Julien is a pretty decent comp to Pasquantino who they were rumored to be looking at as the headliner in a deal for him. I didn't say just Julien, but he'd have been my headliner. The point is there were options. There's always options if you're willing to pay the price. You're not hard and fast on following your own strategy and come up with all kinds of reasons why they shouldn't follow it every time. Until you start following your own strategy every single time maybe you shouldn't attack other posters for not following it.

Free agency isn't the only way to spend money. Julien would've been the 2B I traded in a move that would've taken on salary while keeping Polanco and not spending money on Santana. Add in a FA like Hoskins for a very reasonable deal and I think the team would be significantly better than it is today without having to play in the deep end of the FA pool. Being ok with trading for the guys you were ok with them trading for, and not being all over the FO for not turning around and trading them again before they left (I'm not sure why you're counting Maeda as a RP, by the way) shows that you aren't as married to your strategy as you demand the rest of us be. I'm not sure why it's ok for you to think trading for Sonny was good, and not trading him before he left for nothing was ok, but it's crazy that some of us had a problem with the Polanco trade. To me, that isn't about your strategy at all and is just differing opinions about players and team capabilities. If it's ok to deviate from the strategy sometimes, why can't this be one of those times? If you really believed in the strategy so much you should've been all over them for a number of these moves. But you weren't. Because sometimes the smart thing is to go a little off script. I think in future discussions you should remember that you don't demand strict adherence to the strategy so you probably shouldn't go after others so aggressively when they question a move that doesn't fit perfectly in your strategy that you are now admitting isn't something that needs to be followed to the letter.

Impressive, truly. I openly acknowledged and accepted your data, and said I just want an answer to the question of whether or not you thought trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better and your response is to not just answer the question, but to continue to harp on the data that I granted to you as being accurate and a good strategy for a shot at sustaining successful seasons. For someone who earlier in this thread typed out the sentences "I have asked every person taking this stance to tell me which player he starts in place of" and "So, don't ignore the question like everyone else and just tell where he starts" you sure are good at ignoring questions. You won't simply answer if trading Polanco made the 2024 Twins better or worse and you won't give us your lineups that show Polanco wouldn't play on this team everyday. I can only assume that your refusal to answer those questions is because your answers would be "it made the 2024 team worse" and "there aren't any lineups I could come up with that wouldn't have Polanco as an everyday player for the 2024 Twins." Justin Topa is a 32 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season and 3 bad, but short, ones. If that doesn't meet the definition of volatile reliever I don't know what does. Every major baseball writer/reporter/analyst in the country says the vast majority of relievers are volatile, fungible assets. 32 year olds with 1 good season are the exact reason why they say that. It's the reason the Twins don't spend money on relievers. Do you realize that you're advocating that it was smart for the Twins to trade the guy acquired before he produced a 1.5 WAR season to return multiple pieces (Topa and DeSclafani) for the 2024 Twins that have already produced 1.5 WAR seasons (which you say is a no no) and then trade for another one (Margot) and sign a 4th (Santana) while not non-tendering a 5th that they acquired via trade last year (Farmer) or trading away a 6th they signed last year for basically Polanco money (Vazquez)? And you haven't complained about them trading for Maeda, Mahle, Paddack, and Gray which goes against your strategy. Nor have you complained that they haven't traded Kepler, nor did they trade Maeda, Mahle, or Gray before they walked. Yet you claim "their actions tell me they quite aware of the facts I shared with the group and their decisions are driven by compelling evidence." Oh, and they signed Correa to multiple big money deals, also against your strategy. The vast majority of their moves go directly against your strategy, are you calling them incompetent because they don't follow your strategy in any meaningful way? My mind has been made up and very clearly established on my goal for the 2024 Twins. It was to not shoot themselves in their own foot while making an ALDS team worse, but instead to build on the momentum from 2023 and improve the team. I have no doubt you know this. I have been incredibly consistent in this stance from the very start of the offseason to when Falvey announced the payroll to decrease to the Polanco trade to Pohlad saying "right-size our business" to the signing of Santana and everything before, after, and in between those moves. The reason the 2024 Twins aren't likely capable of being a dominant team is because they chose to cut payroll (do not even think about starting a debate about finances on this thread, I'm simply stating it made the team worse this season not whether it was the right business decision) which lead to the trade of one of their best players for significantly less 2024 value, the retaining of a short side of a platoon bat for significantly more money than he's worth, the signing of a 38 year old 1B who can't hit righties to be an everyday player, and them making no move whatsoever to give them any sort of realistic chance of replacing their departing rotation pieces. Trading away Polanco is part of why the 2024 team doesn't have a very good chance of being dominant so you're just creating a circular logic to say trading him was smart. Yes, I'd be good with the Twins emulating what KC did to win the World Series. They're the team that went against your "trade veterans before they leave" strategy and it got them a title. If Gonzalez becomes Ronald Acuna Jr 2.0 in 2 years I'll eat my crow and say it was a great trade. Feel free to bring it up as much as you want. I'll take the fact that it's incredibly unlikely that he's ever a vital part of an MLB team and say that making the 2024 Twins worse instead of better was a bad decision. Yes, continually acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of the Twins being successful. Your research is not groundbreaking stuff as acquiring young, cheap talent is a vital part of literally 100% of MLB teams being successful, and they all know it. But trading veterans for young, cheap talent at certain times of your team building cycle is also a reason why none of your pet teams ever win titles. The Royals held their guys and won. Yes, I'd like the Twins to have taken that chance with Polanco. You don't have to agree. It's reasonable that you don't want to take the extra risk of the team falling apart after. I am willing to take that risk whether you find it reasonable or not. I am more than happy to acknowledge your research (again), but you also need to acknowledge that taking away from the current team to help the future team is, in fact, taking away from the current team and that those of us who dislike that strategy at certain times aren't ignoring your data or calling the FO incompetent or any of the other claims you make because we won't just say "yes, do whatever MLR says you should!" It is acceptable to think the Polanco trade was smart. It's also acceptable to dislike it. I think the vast majority of us who dislike it also acknowledge that they got good value for him, in a vacuum. It's just not the kind of value we want coming off an ALDS appearance.

"Speaking of Manny Margot, the Twins' usage of him to begin the season has been questionable. He has yet to start a game, regardless of the handedness of the pitcher the Twins face. " Manuel Margot was the Twins opening day, starting DH.

Did trading Jorge Polanco for prospects a volatile reliever and a broken starter make the 2024 Twins better or worse? Nobody has called them incompetent. They didn't trade Kepler and will lose him for nothing which goes against your strategy, would you call them incompetent for that? What about not trading Gray or Maeda? Are you calling them incompetent for that because they went against your strategy? Don't put words in other people's mouths. We can disagree with moves without it being us calling them incompetent. Did not trading those guys tell you they're "quite aware of the facts?" I do not refute that the best way for teams in the Twins financial situation to build consistently solid teams is to trade guys like Polanco for prospects. That is not what I'm disagreeing with. Which was the point of my rant. Trading Polanco for prospects made the 2024 team worse (in my, and apparently other's, opinion) while possibly helping in the future. You are the one refusing to acknowledge that because all you want to talk about is your research. Did that trade hurt or improve the 2024 Twins chances of improving upon their ALDS appearance from 2023? Don't tell us about your research or the future or anything else. Because, as my rant pointed out, that's not what others of us are talking about. We are talking about the 2024 Minnesota Twins. Did that trade help or hurt the talent level of the 2024 Minnesota Twins?

Some of us: "Trading Polanco for a broken starter, volatile reliever, and prospects hurt the 2024 Twins." You: "Yeah, but it may have helped the 2027 Twins!" Us: "We're talking about the 2024 Twins and how this trade effected them." You: "Yeah, but the facts say the 2027 Twins might be better." Us: "Yeah, we understand, but we're willing to take that chance to take a real shot at improving upon an ALDS team instead of making it worse." You: "But 'somebody' did a lot of research so we should talk about the 2027 Twins because that's what their research proves. So ignore what you're talking about and talk about what I want to talk about instead." Us: "We get it. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the 2024 Twins." You: "But 2027..." (Sub in any future year instead of 2027 if you'd like)

I never claimed Lee was ready, I simply pointed out your contradiction. He isn't good enough to push Farmer out of the way, but he is good enough to push Polanco out of the way. Polanco is a better player than Farmer so I'm confused as to how that logic works. Or maybe you disagree and think Kyle Farmer would bring back a similar type return because he's just as good? We can talk splits, though. Go look at Farmer's against righties and tell me you want him playing SS into the playoffs. In the scenario we're talking it would be dropping Farmer while keeping Polanco which means you then have Polanco behind Julien so I'm not sure why you'd say Castro is the only guy there. How much better is Farmer than Polanco as a SS option when you take into account their ability to hit righties? Farmer may be the better choice, but it's not like you're talking a significant gap there when you account for their hitting against righties (who constitute the majority of MLB arms), and Polanco is the better option as the overall player so he'd be the obvious better choice overall. And I think Lewis has played SS once or twice so he'd be another option. Not to mention all the other backup SS out there making much less than 6 million they could've gotten instead of Farmer. I don't know how many times multiple of us have to point out that Polanco wouldn't be taking playing time from Correa, Lewis, or Julien. They'd cycle people through the DH spot (you know, instead of using Manuel Margot there) and either Santana or Farmer wouldn't be on the roster depending on where they decided to save money so Polanco would be taking those ABs as well. Who has put Polanco in LF? I've suggested Kirilloff moving to LF with Polanco at 1B or 2B depending on who they want at first, him or Julien, but nobody has suggest Polanco in LF. You made that up on your own. And if they were comfortable moving both Arraez and Julien to 1B in the majors I'd think they'd be ok moving the former SS Polanco there. Show me the math on Polanco vs 5 guys. They got to keep Farmer, bring in a broken starter, a 32 year old reliever with 1 good MLB season, Margot, and a 38 year old 1B all for the cost of Polanco? I'm not sure you're calculating that right.